Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Motions

Motion 1

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse be reopened as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse 2.

Support

: Feel free to tweak. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  1. Unfortunately, has to be done. Wizardman 04:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    I could work woith NYB's suggestions if he wishes to make that a motion. Wizardman 19:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. After reviewing the reactions to this proposal, it is clear that there is little stomach for the reopening of the case (at least not right now). Thus I am opposing this motion. However, this doesn't preclude dealing with some of the behaviour seen here from various people, but by summary motion instead (based on what has been presented so far). And in response to Durova's point here, that strategy doesn't work at ArbCom (or it shouldn't). There are other options here, and other arbs may be proposing different motions over the next few days. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Per Carcharoth, the last thing this situation needs is more pages and more words. At this point, I am considering whether the best answer for all concerned might be to ask Mattisse, if she wishes to remain active as an editor, to edit primarily in mainspace and to leave process work (FAR, GA, etc.) and wikispace to others for a time. And perhaps Mattisse might best emphasize her efforts on editing of pages whose creators or contributors request her input, and creating new pages of her own, as opposed to weighing in on the contributions of those with whom she has historically disagreed. Does that work for everyone? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Please no. Vassyana ( talk) 08:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. bainer ( talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. No. Given the amount of input here, it would be a waste of time to push it all to another forum. We need to sort this out now. John Vandenberg ( chat) 11:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Finish it here. Cool Hand Luke 00:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. No. Last time/last chance.   Roger Davies talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain

Recuse

  1. Still recused. —  Coren  (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Arbitrator discussion
  • Given the initial reaction to the report on events since the last case (prepared in Silk Tork's userspace), this is one of the options that should be considered (and is one option I suggested earlier when discussing this with Rlevse). I do, however, want to hear more reactions to the report from others first, and also whether those critical of the report would like the case reopened, or whether they are looking for a speedier resolution to this (e.g. by motion right now), as a case will (if that is possible) take up even more time than this clarification thread has done. I also think that any motion or new case should acknowledge the production of the report - the report may only have been an initiative following my suggestion during earlier comments at this clarification thread, but several of those here ran with the suggestion, and it is fair to say that the absence of most other arbitrators from the earlier part of this clarification request may have been taken as consent by silence for the preparation of such a report. If that was not the case, that needs to be made clear as well, as a re-opening of the case implies that the report was insufficient, and that should be said by an explicit vote, not merely by omission. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Clerk notes
  • Given the length of time since the start of this clarification thread, could a clerk please notify those who were a party to the original case, and those who have commented at this clarification thread, as their opinions on re-opening the case should be heard. And could a list of non-recused arbitrators active on this motion be prepared as well, to aid in calculation of majorities for this and any other motions. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply
 Done All participants notified and arb list is below. Manning ( talk) 04:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Motion 2

Mattisse ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from all pages relating to the Featured article process.

Support

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC) okay, one last chance. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. This is not nuanced enough and does not address the real problem, as pointed out by SandyGeorgia here. My preference would be for (possibly mutual) non-interaction and non-commenting injunctions between Mattisse and selected others, across all namespaces. That way, calmer editors would prevail in any discussions, without unhelpful comments from editors who personalise the issues. And there are several editors here, not just Mattisse, who overly personalise things. Carcharoth ( talk) 17:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Per SandyGeorgia and Carcharoth. Vassyana ( talk) 08:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. bainer ( talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Cool Hand Luke 17:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain

  1. Lean support though I understand Sandy's concerns. Wizardman 17:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. I have proposed finer-grained remedies below, but am leaning towards supporting a indef ban on featured content discussions in order to stave off many potential crises which consume so much of the communities time. John Vandenberg ( chat) 12:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. This motion is clearly not passing; recording a vote at this point per one of my colleagues' recommendations, to complete the record. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Arbitrator discussion
Clerk notes
Motion 2.1

Mattisse ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from initiating FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts.

Support

  1. Lifted from SandyGeorgia 18:14, 22 October 2009. This appears to be a very sensible and minimal remedy. -- John Vandenberg ( chat) 12:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    In most of these you can't really 'initiate' articles of others anyway, so this would work. Wizardman 17:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    Cool Hand Luke 00:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Convinced about imprecision and broadness problems. Cool Hand Luke 03:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    Switching to oppose. Initiating reviews of the status of articles written in large part by those you have been in conflict with is possible, but the problem here is defining "with whom she has had previous conflicts". Having said that, a ban from initiating such reviews is not onerous, so I will support anyway. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. The last thing we need to do is encourage or foster, even by implication, an ownership culture. At minimum a change from "of editors" to "credited to editors". Also, it doesn't track well as written. I presume that this is intended to address FAR and GAR, but to include the normal promotion processes seems way out of place. Vassyana ( talk) 18:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. bainer ( talk) 23:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Switching to oppose from support. This isn't really workable. It was based (as John said) on a suggestion by Sandy ("At a minimum, I never understood why ArbCom didn't rule that Mattisse should no longer review (or initiate) FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts."), but Geometry guy's objections (which Sandy has also pointed towards) demonstrate that this is not workable. I think something more like motion 2.3 is needed, and am switching to supporting that instead. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Cool Hand Luke 03:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Impractical.   Roger Davies talk 04:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain

  1. I think, strongly, that Mattisse should stay away from initiating reviews of articles associated with the editors she has had problematic interactions with. But this committee has not and should not define this group of editors, so the better course is probably to require Mattisse to consult with her mentors before initiating or participating in any FARs, GARs, etc.; they presumably will dissuade her from doing so if the article's primary contributors included Giano, Bishonen, Geogre, et al. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Prefer 2.2, and per NYB. Wizardman 16:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Motion 2.2

Mattisse ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from participating in FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts.

Support

  1. As with motion 2.1, this is lifted from SandyGeorgia 18:14, 22 October 2009. I think this is necessary at the moment; I would be willing to lift this after there is a long period without conflict. -- John Vandenberg ( chat) 12:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Wizardman 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    Cool Hand Luke 00:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Imprecise and not worth defining. Cool Hand Luke 03:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
      Roger Davies talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Impractical. Switching to oppose.   Roger Davies talk 04:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. The last thing we need to do is encourage or foster, even by implication, an ownership culture. I would switch to abstain with a change of "of editors" to "initiated by editors". Vassyana ( talk) 18:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Per Vassyana and ownership concerns. FARs and GARs should be about the articles, not those who wrote them. Participation is fine as long as someone else initiates them. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. bainer ( talk) 23:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Cool Hand Luke 03:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  5.   Roger Davies talk 04:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain

  1. Per my comments on 2.1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Motion 2.3

For 6 months, Mattisse ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is required to note her intention to participate in FACs, FARs, GANs, and GARs on the Mentoring page, and wait for feedback from the mentors, who are expected to decline if they have reason to be concerned.

Support

  1. Weak support. This should have the effect of limiting old conflicts from occuring, ensure that a mentor can watchlist the relevant pages beforehand, and (for good or ill) reducing the number of FACs, FARs, GANs, and GARs that she engages in. -- John Vandenberg ( chat) 12:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Switching from abstain to support. Firmer and clearer restrictions needed (i.e. from recent events, it seems that red tape is needed here). Also, this needs to apply to tagging of articles and commenting on talk pages on the quality of featured articles and good articles (i.e. the 'prior' stages to a formal review). I would phrase this as

    For 6 months, Mattisse ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is required to note her intention to participate in FACs, FARs, GANs, and GARs on the Mentoring page, and wait for feedback from the mentors, who are expected to decline if they have reason to be concerned. Mattisse is also instructed to seek approval from her mentors before tagging articles, or making comments on the talk page regarding quality of articles, where the articles in question are featured, are good articles, or were previously good or featured articles.

    To avoid drama, those objecting to any proposal Mattisse makes to participate in one of these reviews (or initiate a FAR or GAR, or tag or comment on an article talk page - those behaviours need to be restricted as well), need to wait for a response from the mentors, and to accept that if the mentors approve a potentially controversial proposal, it is likely due to not knowing what may be controversial about the proposal, and to either accept the approval, or find a way to alert the mentors to a potential problem without causing drama. Would prefer that explicit reasons are not provided for declining any proposed reviews by Mattisse - naming people will only personalise the issue. Mattisse, for her part, needs to accept that things have got to the stage where she needs to steer clear of certain areas. The six-month review point is needed, as nothing as restrictive as this should be permanent, and those who object to working with Mattisse (or having Mattisse review their work) should always keep open the option of working with her at some future point. Anyone who wants to invite Mattisse to review their work should (per common sense) over-ride this, but those editors should be sensitive to the concerns that may be raised by others who have worked on the articles. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Support. This is the best alternative here. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. If we're already blocking out ones where she's had conflicts I think we'll be alright. Besides, I would trust the mediators to look over this even without the motion. Wizardman 17:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    Reiterating my oppose; too bureaucratic. Wizardman 23:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  2.   Roger Davies talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    I think the other motions will take care of it. This is a strong final warning. Cool Hand Luke 16:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. bainer ( talk) 23:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain

  1. Too much red tape, though I appreciate the sentiment. Vassyana ( talk) 18:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    Switching to support. 08:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC) May be needed at some point, but not now. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Too process wonky for me to support, but I prefer the flexibility to a "do not contact" list that we aren't even willing to define. Cool Hand Luke 03:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Motion 3

The report submitted by Mattisse's mentors and advisors here is acknowledged and a copy and link of the report shall be filed at the case pages. The report and its conclusions will be taken under consideration by the Committee, along with the public review and comments made at this clarification thread that led to that report. Further motions and sanctions to clarify or amend the case will be considered and presented here for voting.

Support

  1. Formalising the process here. We have what we need. We now need to make a decision. But the report and the comments made at this thread and on the report talk page are an important part of the process and need to be entered into the record on the case pages. Carcharoth ( talk) 18:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Wizardman 17:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Vassyana ( talk) 08:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. bainer ( talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. John Vandenberg ( chat) 09:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Cool Hand Luke 04:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  7.   Roger Davies talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    : — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion
Clerk notes

Motion 4

The most recent blocks and unblocks of Mattisse, carried out by one or more of her mentors and advisors, are noted and endorsed. Mattisse's attention is drawn to items 2 and 3 of the report submitted by her mentors/advisors: "Mattisse to not post in anger or frustration anywhere on Wikipedia without having first consulted her mentors/advisors." and "Mattisse to not make any remark about another editor on Wikipedia that could be seen as negative without first consulting her mentors/advisors." Mattisse's mentors and advisors are asked to keep a log of such blocks and to return here if such conduct continues without signs of change.

Support

  1. Noting that things are getting stricter. Carcharoth ( talk) 18:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Wizardman 17:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Vassyana ( talk) 08:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. bainer ( talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. John Vandenberg ( chat) 09:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Cool Hand Luke 04:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  7.   Roger Davies talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion
Clerk notes

Motion 5

Any editor with concerns about a post made by Mattisse in any location may remove the post and file a report at User:Mattisse/Monitoring. Once this is done, further discussion should be limited in nature and those filing a report should wait for a response from Mattisse's mentors and advisors. If editors repeatedly file reports that are found to be frivolous or unwarranted, this should be noted by Mattisse's mentors and advisors, and the concerns raised in the appropriate places.

Support

  1. Try to lay out what should happen, based on the points made in the report. Carcharoth ( talk) 18:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Wizardman 17:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. This is contrary to the documented plan, which reserves the page for another purpose, as noted in my comments above. If nothing else, we should not be perpetuating the gross misconception regarding page structure. I would prefer it if we simply noted "an appropriate designated page" or explicitly noted that we are imposing a direct change to the page structure and mentoring plan. Vassyana ( talk) 08:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Per Vassyana. What needs to happen is for that page to be reserved solely for the purposes of the mentorship. Proposing alternative below. -- bainer ( talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Per Vassyana. Overly wonky besides. Cool Hand Luke 04:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Per Vassyana and CHL.   Roger Davies talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion
  • Responding here to Sandy's concerns here. If there were problems at a FAC, then any editor (including the FAC delegates) could either remove the questionable post altogether and file a report at the monitoring page, or a FAC delegate could move the post to talk, or restart the FAC. What the intention here is, is for both Mattisse and the person filing the report, to then wait. Not to get into an argument there, here, over there, at the FAC page, on user talk pages, or anywhere else, and not to discuss the matter with others on their talk pages lamenting how terrible it is that this has happened, but to wait. i.e. Everyone has to be patient. Remove the post, file the report, state concern, and then wait. Only at the end of the process, would concerns be raised if it was felt the response was inadequate. And any statements by Mattisse in response to the report would have to be checked first to avoid them inflaming the situation. I should note here that if any editor does repeatedly file frivolous or unwarranted reports, then they will likely be barred from filing any such reports in future. The aim is to allow potential incidents to be stopped rapidly at the beginning, and to avoid the discussion merely continuing and spiralling out-of-control elsewhere. i.e. Put things on hold until a calm review can be done, and to have a record for future reference if needed. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Clerk notes

Motion 5.1

Any editor with concerns about a post made by Mattisse in any location may remove the post and file a report at the appropriate designated page.

Support

  1. John Vandenberg ( chat) 04:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. I dreadfully fear the drama potential for arguments over the removal of comments, including what is an acceptable "error rate" in doing so. This is not a bad idea, but seems way too open to gaming. Vassyana ( talk) 11:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Also wonky and drama-prone, as above. Cool Hand Luke 04:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Wizardman 00:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  4.   Roger Davies talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. bainer ( talk) 23:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain

  1. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Arbitrator discussion
Clerk notes

Motion 6

Those who have been critical of Mattisse's conduct and the feasibility of the plan, and critical of the action or lack of action taken by her mentors and advisors, are asked to engage with the new process and give it a chance to work. Those who have historically had poor interactions with Mattisse, are asked to either file a report at the Monitoring page, or to talk to her mentors and advisors first if they have concerns. This approach should be used instead of approaching Mattisse directly, or discussing issues related to Mattisse on user talk pages among themselves. Mattisse is instructed to refrain from participating directly in such discussions, and to instead direct her responses and concerns to her mentors and advisors.

Support

  1. Final piece of the jigsaw, I hope. Carcharoth ( talk) 19:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Update: Wording changed 20:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
: Mattisse should probably be advised this is likely her last chance. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. It should not be necessary to ask people not to interfere with a remedy in this way. -- bainer ( talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Concur with Stephen.   Roger Davies talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain

  1. Good intent, but general discomfort with wording. Also, please note my opposition to the monitoring page motion, which would need to be rectified there or here before I could consider support at all. Vassyana ( talk) 08:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Too broad as everyone seems to be included in it, and lacks a binding decision required to make it enforcible, which is most needed here. John Vandenberg ( chat) 14:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. I think I'm where John Vandenberg is. Cool Hand Luke 16:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. With emphasis on Rlevse point; we cannot give any more rope. Wizardman 17:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Arbitrator discussion
Clerk notes

Motion 7

Mattisse ( talk · contribs) is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors and any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.

Support

  1. Proposed. A safety valve to prevent a repeat visit before ArbCom should other measures fail. It is appropriately qualified to prevent such a probation from short-circuiting the opportunity for mentoring to work. Vassyana ( talk) 08:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Equal preference, so long as the uninvolved admins really are uninvolved. Wizardman 20:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. Am not confident that uninvolved administrators can avoid being urged to act by others with the claim that the mentors are failing to do their job. Any uninvolved admin taking action needs to do so on their own judgment. If too many "uninvolved" administrators step in and take action, it may make it impossible for the mentorship to work. There will also likely be differing definitions of "repeatedly or seriously" at work here. Some will lose patience quicker than others - should action really be taken by those who lose patience fastest? Situations like this really don't work well when thrown open for any admin to take action. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Per Carcharoth, this would undermine the ability of the mentors to work effectively. -- bainer ( talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Uninvolved administrators can take action when required, in the event that the mentors are MIA. They shouldnt be imposing discretionary sanctions. John Vandenberg ( chat) 14:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  4.   Roger Davies talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Cool Hand Luke 20:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion
Clerk notes
Motion 7.1

Mattisse ( talk · contribs) is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.

Support

  1. Proposed. In response to concerns above. Vassyana ( talk) 05:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Equal preference. Wizardman 20:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. This does not prevent other admins from taking appropriate action when required - it gives the mentors discretionary sanctions, which should be logged on the case page. John Vandenberg ( chat) 14:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Cool Hand Luke 04:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  6.   Roger Davies talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Per John V. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Abstain

  1. bainer ( talk) 23:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Arbitrator discussion
Clerk notes

Motion 8

Editors are reminded that baiting, antagonistic comments, and other such behavior is disruptive. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to handle such circumstances as they would any other disruptive conduct, including appropriate warnings and advice, short page bans, as well as escalating blocks for repeated or egregious misconduct.

Support

  1. The other half of the safety valve. Vassyana ( talk) 08:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. This is needed, agreed. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Wizardman 07:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. I have added "short page bans". John Vandenberg ( chat) 14:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Support as baseline. Cool Hand Luke 04:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  6.   Roger Davies talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. Inadequate. Proposing alternative below. -- bainer ( talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion
Clerk notes

Motion 9

Editing of the the page User:Mattisse/Monitoring, as well as its talk page and any other pages created for the purposes of carrying out the mentorship, shall be limited to Mattisse ( talk · contribs) and her mentors for the duration of the mentorship. Users wishing to comment upon any aspect of the mentorship may contact the mentors directly.

Support:
  1. Opportunity must be given for the remedy to be implemented without external interference. -- bainer ( talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Fair enough. Wizardman 07:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. If, and only if, Motion 10 passes. Otherwise, oppose. Cool Hand Luke 04:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. per Cool Hand Luke. John Vandenberg ( chat) 12:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Yes but only if Motion 10 also passes.   Roger Davies talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Switching to support from abstain, but only if motion 10 passes. Common sense should prevail about the wording, as Motion 10 implies what Vassyana is saying, so these two motions should be modified or combined before publication. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Noting that Motions 10 and 11 amend this motion, and that should be reflected in the implementation notes and final publication. Vassyana ( talk) 11:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. I have done a copyedit of this motion, subject to everyone else's approval. The original proposal was that all other users are "banned from editing" the mentoring page. A ban is a sanction, and I don't believe this was intended as a fact that anyone (much less the entire community except for a handful of people) has engaged in misconduct on this page. (Editing of ArbCom proposed decision pages is limited to the arbitrators and in some context the clerks, but I don't think we'd say that another editor is "banned" from those pages.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
# How are issues going to be reported? John Vandenberg ( chat) 14:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
# The lack of a "or on a subpage designated for such a purpose" clause is a deal-killer. I would prefer to depend on common sense and appeal to the spirit of the rules to work. However, hairsplitting and to-the-letter approaches are far too predominant to extend such hope. Vassyana ( talk) 18:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Switching to support. 14:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC) This appears to be a less structured alternative to motion 5. If changes were made along the lines Vassyana suggests below, I might move to support. I won't oppose, though, as something giving the mentorship room to work is needed, even if I don't agree that this is quite the motion to do that yet. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Arbitrator discussion
Clerk notes

Motion 10

"Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts" will be set up for the community to report issues to the mentors.

Support:
  1. Mattisse should limit her involvement in this page. If this motions passes, I can support motion 9, and motion 11 is less important. John Vandenberg ( chat) 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. I can get behind this. Vassyana ( talk) 11:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Per John. Cool Hand Luke 04:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Bureaucratic, but okay. Wizardman 00:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Per John.   Roger Davies talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. To prevent the same disruption that has led us to this point, 'concerned members of the community' should contact the mentors directly. -- bainer ( talk) 23:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Abstain:

Motion 11

User:Mattisse/Monitoring is moved to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring".

Support:
  1. Some of the tension is because the community is reporting problems in Mattisse's userspace. I think that motion 10 hits the nail on the head, but this cant hurt. John Vandenberg ( chat) 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Noting its purpose for coordination between Mattisse and her mentors. Vassyana ( talk) 11:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Clerical. Cool Hand Luke 04:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Wizardman 00:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. This page does not belong in "ArbCom space." If the intent is to make clear that the page's existence is supported by this committee and its decision, then this can be noted in a box on the top of the page or via other appropriate means. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. bainer ( talk) 23:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Arbitrator list

Active

  1. Carcharoth
  2. Cool Hand Luke
  3. John Vandenberg
  4. Newyorkbrad
  5. Roger Davies
  6. Stephen Bain
  7. Vassyana
  8. Wizardman

Recused

  1. Coren
  2. FloNight
  3. Risker

Away or inactive

  1. FayssalF
  2. Rlevse

Clerk notes

Eight active arbitrators - majority is 5.

  • Motion 1) Failing 1/7/0
  • Motion 2) Failing 0/4/3
  • Motion 2.1) Failing 1/5/2
  • Motion 2.2) Failing 1/5/1
  • Motion 2.3) Tied (and failing) 3/3/2
  • Motion 3) Passing 8/0/0
  • Motion 4) Passing 8/0/0
  • Motion 5) Failing 2/5/0
  • Motion 5.1) Failing 1/6/1
  • Motion 6) Failing 1/2/5
  • Motion 7) Failing 3/5/0
  • Motion 7.1) Passing 7/0/1
  • Motion 8) Passing 7/1/0
  • Motion 9) Passing 8/0/0
  • Motion 10) Passing 7/1/0
  • Motion 11) Passing 5/1/1

- Carcharoth ( talk) lasted updated 04:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Noting that only three motions are left to be decided, and only three arbitrators active on this are left to complete or start voting. One of those arbitrators has indicated he will vote in the next 24-48 hours. During that time, I will notify a clerk to look this over in preparation to closing it. Could all those who still wish to comment do so within that time period, focusing on the motions themselves and keeping comments brief. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Only two arbitrators left to vote on this. I have asked again, as a matter if urgency, that those arbitrators vote here to help resolve the undecided motions, and for the other arbitrators active here to review the latest comments to see if any of their votes change. If the three undecided motions are not resolved in 48 hours, I will ask for the passing motions to be enacted and the undecided matters held over to a later date. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I've now voted on all the motions except for those that were being clearly defeated (no need to pile on here any more than on any other page). (If I have inadvertently missed anything, someone please let me know.) I want to be on record as making clear that I regard the currently endorsed arrangements as a last chance for Mattisse to maintain her editing privileges and continue doing the good work that she does; the amount of time and disputation associated with any one editor, however valued, must have its limits. I also urge those editors with whom Mattisse has heretofore come into conflict to stand back and give her a final opportunity to strive to succeed with the support of her advisors, or if she does not, to be judged without doubt as having fallen short of our goals for her. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Per a suggestion/request from one of my colleagues, I've now voted on all the proposed motions (even those whose result was already clear), and made a few more comments. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Summary

  • The report submitted by Mattisse's mentors and advisors here is acknowledged and a copy and link of the report shall be filed at the case pages. The report and its conclusions will be taken under consideration by the Committee, along with the public review and comments made at this clarification thread that led to that report. Further motions and sanctions to clarify or amend the case will be considered and presented here for voting.
  • The most recent blocks and unblocks of Mattisse, carried out by one or more of her mentors and advisors, are noted and endorsed. Mattisse's attention is drawn to items 2 and 3 of the report submitted by her mentors/advisors: "Mattisse to not post in anger or frustration anywhere on Wikipedia without having first consulted her mentors/advisors." and "Mattisse to not make any remark about another editor on Wikipedia that could be seen as negative without first consulting her mentors/advisors." Mattisse's mentors and advisors are asked to keep a log of such blocks and to return here if such conduct continues without signs of change.
  • Mattisse ( talk · contribs) is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
  • Editors are reminded that baiting, antagonistic comments, and other such behavior is disruptive. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to handle such circumstances as they would any other disruptive conduct, including appropriate warnings and advice, short page bans, as well as escalating blocks for repeated or egregious misconduct.
  • Editing of the the page User:Mattisse/Monitoring, as well as its talk page and any other pages created for the purposes of carrying out the mentorship, shall be limited to Mattisse ( talk · contribs) and her mentors for the duration of the mentorship. Users wishing to comment upon any aspect of the mentorship may contact the mentors directly, or on a subpage designated for such a purpose. Modified by next two motions.
  • "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts" will be set up for the community to report issues to the mentors.
  • User:Mattisse/Monitoring is moved to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring".

Motion to close

Support
  1. Closing by motion to draw a clear line under this protracted process, especially given recent changes in votes. I also added (in the summary only) the phrase "or on a subpage designated for such a purpose" to make it clearer and less prone to misinterpretation. Any objections or support for that edit should be registered in this closing motion. Carcharoth ( talk) 04:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Wizardman 04:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. I take a dim view of Mattisse's activities, which are not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Those who devote themselves to the creation of quality content give much of themselves through long hours of patient study and consistent effort. The serial erection of pettifogging or pedantic obstacles serves only to sap the will and undermine the morale of our best contributors. This clarification lets Mattisse off very lightly indeed and I anticipate much sterner measures if Mattisse's unacceptable conduct continues.   Roger Davies talk 11:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Vassyana ( talk) 18:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Well, it is certainly time to close out this excessively delayed "clarification," although we also have to acknowledge that this was not this Committee's finest hour of decisive decision-making (and I will take my share of the onus for that). For my part, at least, three points should be clear:
    (1) Mattisse's positive contributions are valued, but she continues from time to time to evince the same problematic behavior that was the subject of our original decision. That behavior needs to stop.
    (2) The work of the mentors/advisors here is appreciated, and we know the task they have accepted is not an easy one. Hopefully this group of dedicated editors can keep Mattisse's attention focused on content and not problems with her fellow editors.
    (3) Hopefully this is the last time this Committee needs to address Mattisse's conduct. A further continuation of problematic interactions will likely lead to a significant sanction in the next go-round, because no editor is indispensible, however valuable his or her contributions. I would much rather that Mattisse, in the long term, be noted for her positive contributions to the site, but whether this can be attained is entirely up to her. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Comment
  1. Move to close Seddon talk| WikimediaUK 03:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision/Motion&oldid=445356218"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE