Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed decision

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Mattisse
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerks' noticeboard. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

For this case, there are 10 active Arbitrators (excluding 5 who are recused), so 6 votes are a majority.

Proposed motions

edit

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

edit

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

edit

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

edit

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

edit

Proposed principles

edit

Purpose of Wikipedia

edit

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among contributors.

Support:
  1. Please note that a slightly reworded version of this principle was proposed and endorsed by commenters on the workshop. I prefer our usual wording as above, which emphasizes the need for good working relationships among our contributors as being integral to the purpose and success of the project, given that we are all volunteers here. However, other arbitrators may wish to ponder whether it better expresses a nuance I am missing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 18:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 09:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Vassyana (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. bainer (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editor conduct and decorum

edit

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 18:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 09:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Vassyana (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. bainer (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Casting aspersions

edit

3) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 18:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 09:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This applies to people commenting on Mattisse as well as Mattisse commenting on others. Civil behaviour is required both ways here, as is use of dispute resolution, rather than sniping, bringing up old disputes, and returning to previous behaviour. Some have pursued dispute resolution here. Others have sniped. Carcharoth (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This cuts both ways. Cool Hand Luke 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Vassyana (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The observations of Carcharoth and CHL are well made. --bainer (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Evaluating user conduct

edit

4) An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse bad behavior or misconduct in another aspect of participation. An editor's misconduct also is not excused because another editor or editors may also have engaged in such conduct. Such factors may nonetheless be considered in mitigation of any sanction to be imposed, or for other relevant purposes such as an inferring a user's overall intent toward the project.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 18:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 09:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Vassyana (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Particularly in assessment of what sanctions are likely to work or not work. --bainer (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Repetition of improper conduct

edit

5) Users who have been sanctioned or legitimately criticized for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that behavior in their continued participation in the project. Similarly, a user who has promised to discontinue a certain type of problematic behavior on-wiki must make every effort to avoid returning to that pattern of behavior. Failure or inability to do so may necessitate imposing further restrictions or sanctions, or in the most serious cases, loss of the privilege of participating in the project.

Support:
  1. As with several of the other proposals, I have revised this from the workshop draft per the comments received there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 18:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 09:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Key point here. Carcharoth (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Vassyana (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. bainer (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Mentorship and similar arrangements

edit

6) In certain limited circumstances, formal mentorship and similar voluntary and involuntary arrangements, may be suitable to provide advice and support to people involved in disputes, or needing advice on how to work collaboratively on Wikipedia. The long-term aim of such arrangements should be for those involved to improve their conduct and work collaboratively without the need, or with a reduced need, for such advice. Such mentorships or similar arrangements may be agreed to as an alternative to more serious remedies, such as bans or paroles, or they may be an end result of the dispute resolution process itself. Users may voluntarily place themselves under such arrangements, or be placed under such arrangements by the community, or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. Any such formal arrangements should be recorded and documented in an appropriate place.

Support:
  1. Principle to cover mentorship and similar arrangements. I've said "similar arrangements" because the plan in this case may not be strictly a mentorship (currently it is a "plan", and will need re-titling). I think this principle, or some equivalent, is needed to round off the case. Some of the wording is taken from the essay linked in the first sentence. Carcharoth (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Noting here that the wording should really be tweaked to include the phrase "constructive criticism" to make clear that advice should include criticism, not just support. The principle should also touch on the issue of self-imposed restrictions, absent mentorship, as it is in theory possible to have a page like the one Mattisse has drawn up, but without mentors or advisors. Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  2. I support this principle as written. However, in the context of arbitration, I note an objection to gatekeeper or parole officer type arrangements being called "mentorship". Such treatment muddles an important distinction in a fashion comparable to muddling mediation with arbitration. --Vassyana (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I do not share the concerns of Vassyana. I agree that "mentorship" isnt the best term, however the community often gives ultimatums of "you are banned, .. unless a mentor steps forward", however it often isn't stated in so many words, for good or ill. The involuntary nature of "mentorship as a consequence of arbitration" is not much different. The structure of any mentorship depends on what can be agreed is beneficial for the project, and where it is a consequence of arbitration the structure is usually more rigid because we don't want to end up going through the same process again, if it can be helped. In order for mentorships to be disengaged from the arbitration that spawned them, the mentoring plan needs to be well articulated, and the arbitration remedies and enforcement need to geared towards periodical reports and reviews rather than "any uninvolved administrator may.." - i.e. the committee needs to endorse the plan and then step back with our fingers crossed, and be guided by the mentors rather than the mentors be beholden to the committee. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 14:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 12:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cool Hand Luke 18:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. bainer (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

edit

7) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

edit

Mattisse's contributions

edit

1) Mattisse (talk · contribs) is an experienced editor who has made more than 65,000 edits on Wikipedia. Among other contributions, she has created or contributed substantially to hundreds of new pages, many of which have been recognized as featured articles, as good articles, or on "did you know?" She frequently acts as a copyeditor and her skills in this area are widely recognized. She has also provided input to editors in evaluation processes for featured content, good articles, and DYK. Mattisse's userpage reflects that she has received approximately 30 substantive barnstars from various fellow editors in recognition of the extent and quality of her contributions.

Support:
  1. "Background" positive findings are sometimes thought unnecessary, but it would be churlish at best to evaluate Mattisse's participation in Wikipedia in the context of a one-party case without making prominent mention of these facts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, they are often unnecessary. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 09:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Would also like to point out here the support Mattisse received from other editors during this case, in particular the comments left here. That is not to be taken lightly, and Mattisse should take that as encouragement for the good work she does, while taking on board, in a more permanent manner, the need to change other aspects of her conduct. Carcharoth (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. More than just awards. Appears to be a lot of good work here. Cool Hand Luke 14:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Vassyana (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I dislike this type of finding, and as usual I abstain. In general, findings more clearly about positive aspects of a user's conduct, rather than judgments on the worth of the user's contributions, would be useful for the consideration contemplated by proposed principle #4 above. --bainer (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse's behavior

edit

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

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 09:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is what makes the case so troubling. Carcharoth (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. We've seen worse, but this is not good behavior. Cool Hand Luke 14:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Vassyana (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. bainer (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Prior attempts at resolution

edit

3) Mattisse has sometimes agreed to address certain issues concerning her interactions with other users, such as by avoiding the types of discussions or interactions that she finds to be stressful. However, in each instance she has soon returned to the same forums and behavior patterns she had agreed to avoid.

Support:
  1. I have dropped proposal 4 from the workshop but incorporated a key aspect (that Mattisse finds certain types of on-wiki interactions to be stressful, which in turn brings out negative behavior from her) here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 09:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Would note here that some behaviour by others has not helped. Sometimes Mattisse was not the instigator. Carcharoth (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I tend to agree with Carcharoth. We're not laying all of the blame on Mattisse. Cool Hand Luke 14:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Vassyana (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. bainer (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Mattisse's development of a plan

edit

4) During the case, Mattisse started a page in her userspace (User:Mattisse/Plan) in response to this proposed remedy (titled "Planning to address issues"), posted on 29 May. The talk page for the userspace plan was started on 31 May, and the page itself started on 3rd June. The plan was developed over the following weeks with input from other editors. Mattisse submitted the plan to the Arbitration Committee on 24 June.

Support:
  1. Finding of fact about response during the case, and documenting the timeline here. No comment on the plan itself, that comes later and elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Simple and appropriate documentation of Mattise's response. --Vassyana (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thanks to everyone who participated in developing this plan. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 14:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 12:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cool Hand Luke 18:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. bainer (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

edit

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies

edit

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Planning to address issues

edit

1) Within 15 days of this decision, 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. The plan shall seek to preserve Mattisse's valuable and rewarding contributions to Wikipedia while avoiding future disputes and the types of interactions that have been hurtful for herself and others. As a starting point in developing the plan, 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. The plan should also address how any lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan shall be addressed. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan as required by this paragraph while the proposed decision was pending. See next paragraph.)

Support:
  1. This troublesome case could reasonably lead to a variety of outcomes. This is my best attempt at balancing, one I present with mixed feelings. I anticipate that other arbitrators may offer alternatives. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am willing to offer a motion to address the concerns expressed below, if my colleagues would prefer that approach. Once a couple more votes are in we will see. In the interim, Mattisse and those willing to work with her should proceed as outlined here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Parenthetical note added at end of paragraph by way of update. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Continued problematic behavior would almost certainly lead to stricter findings in a subsequent arb case if it arose. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mulled it over and I think this could work. Wizardman 04:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 09:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indenting support for now. 12:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I see this as a preliminary step, rather than a full resolution to the case. Would suggest 15 days as a deadline for at least some workable plan to be submitted. At that stage, if a bit more time is needed to sort out the details, that is fine. Carcharoth (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This is not a remedy. The plan should be thrashed out on the Workshop rather than after the case is closed. Another concern is that it does not stipulate whether the community will be informed of this plan. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Switching from support (for now). John is quite right. My comments were headed in this direction, but I hadn't quite made the logical connection. Brad said "This troublesome case could reasonably lead to a variety of outcomes." True. But those outcomes, and which outcomes are the right ones, should be discussed here and now in the case. Not shuffled offstage and subjected to a 15-day deadline. If anything, this should be an injunction to submit plans to the Workshop page within 15 days, and then the arbs can take things from there. Carcharoth (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Very uncomfortable with a finding where the arbitration committee requires users to submit to arbitration elsewhere. Although I like the idea of forcing a settlement, resolving this case is the core of our mandate. Let's ask for proposals from the workshop and continue 15 days from now. Cool Hand Luke 14:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moot with one of the options below passing. --bainer (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption of proposed plan (1)

edit

1a.i) The plan submitted at User:Mattisse/Plan (version as of 24 June) shall be considered for adoption following discussion between arbitrators and those involved and affected by the plan. A period of seven days (from 24 June) for further discussion will be followed by a vote to endorse or reject the plan.

Support:
  1. Equal preference to (2). Alternatives possible. Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Third choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Equal preference among alternatives. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. What happens if we reject the plan..? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cool Hand Luke 13:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I don't see the need to micromanage the situation. If Mattise's plans and mentorship arrangements are satisfactory, which I believe they are, there's no need for further voting or ArbCom involvement. --Vassyana (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 19:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 10:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption of proposed plan (2)

edit

1a.ii) The plan submitted at User:Mattisse/Plan (version as of 24 June) is considered satisfactory and enacted as a remedy. The Arbitration Committee will continue to review the plan after the case is closed, and will review it as needed if any objections are raised.

Support:
  1. Equal preference to (1). Alternatives possible. Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. I am not so keen on "continual review", so I have proposed below. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. Wizardman 19:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 13:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Equal preference among alternatives. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my abstention rationale above. Opposing due to stronger micromanagement aspect. --Vassyana (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption of proposed plan (3)

edit

1a.iii) The plan submitted at User:Mattisse/Plan (version as of 24 June) is considered satisfactory and enacted as a baseline. Amendments to the plan may occur by consensus of the mentors, whereby the changes become provisional. At the discretion of the mentors, or if there are significant objections by the community, the provisional changes will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment.

Support:
  1. I think this creates a more clear and disengaged mentorship. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is the best of all variants. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First preference. I can understand Vassyana's micromanagement concerns, but, for now at least, clear control of the situation is needed. Possibly, in future, such conditions can be relaxed. Carcharoth (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Wizardman 19:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 13:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Equal preference among alternatives. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. This provides certainty but with sufficient flexibility going forward. --bainer (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Strongly. Per my oppose and abstention rationales above. --Vassyana (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse banned conditionally

edit

2) Should Mattisse fail to submit a satisfactory plan under remedy 1 within 15 days of this decision, she shall not edit Wikipedia until she does so, except with permission of this Committee. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan, as required by remedy 1, while the proposed decision was pending. See preceding paragraphs.)

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 04:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 09:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indenting support for now. 12:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Noting here that the committee may take a while to approve any plan. Would suggest that if discussions are ongoing, that no action taken unless the committee explicitly authorises it. The reason I'm trying to be flexible here is that I don't want Mattisse to be pressured into an unworkable plan under pressure of some arbitrary 15-day deadline. If Mattisse needs more time, that should be fine, but (after 15 days) no editing until this is resolved, unless on pages set up on Wikipedia to document the plan. Carcharoth (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Parenthetical note added at end of paragraph by way of update. Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my oppose to remedy 1. How will we evaluate "satisfactory"? This appears to be moving the voting phase behind closed doors. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. John is quite right. Evaluating "satisfactory" needs to be done in the open. Carcharoth (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per above. Cool Hand Luke 14:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moot with one of the options above passing. --bainer (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse restricted

edit

3) Mattisse is instructed not to maintain on-wiki any lists of users with whom she has had negative interactions or of whom she has a negative view.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 18:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 09:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Vassyana (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Carcharoth below, this is directed at maintaining lists outside of active involvement in dispute resolution. --bainer (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Using "instructed" leaves this open to interpretation, and the use of "maintain" allows a list to be saved and then left unmaintained. If this is attempt to prevent her composing lists of users, we need to be mindful that normal complaints on ANI would typically include a list of users whom she is having negative interactions with. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to stay in the support column here. It is clear what Brad means here. Don't maintain lists outside of dispute resolution proccesses, and make clear what the nature of the dispute is. An improvement of the wording is all that is needed here. As for "maintain" vs "saved", the next thing you'll be doing is pointing out the use of "on-wiki", implying that "off-wiki" lists are OK. The point is to get at the anti-collaborative idea that people can be grouped into camps and factions. That just leads to a battleground mentality. Carcharoth (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I'm worried about wikilawyering, as John outlines. Would support a language change. Cool Hand Luke 14:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to any reasonable copyediting or rewording that would address John's and CHL's concerns here, if they or anyone else wishes to suggest one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing jurisdiction

edit

4) The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this case, as it does in any case. Should the preceding remedies fail to improve the situation described in this decision, after a reasonable time, an application may be made to reopen the case and impose other remedies as may be necessary.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 18:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Of course this is always true. Not sure we need to say it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 09:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Re-establishing support for this. Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Indenting support for now. 12:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 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. Carcharoth (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This is always true, of course, but it doesn't hurt as a reminder when the nature of the remedies are such as the ones in this case. --bainer (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. per Rlevse. Including wording to this effect on some cases and not others isn't helpful. If this is policy, it belongs in our standard policy. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. We need to stop doing this and make clear it applies to all cases regardless. If anyone can make a good argument why some cases need this and others don't, I'd like to hear it. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to these comments, my practice has been to include a "continuing jurisdiction" paragraph as an express remedy in cases where our thinking is "okay, we will try a limited or lenient set or remedies first, but we are quite ready to move on to something much harsher if this doesn't solve the problem." It puts the parties on a last-chance type of notice and eliminates any claim that they weren't warned, etc.; it also reduces "why didn't they do more?" reactions by making clear we're prepared to do more if we have to. This provision should probably be used more often, actually. Adding it to the Arbitration Policy, while probably a good idea, is not sufficient because the people who need to be reminded in the cases are not necessarily devotees of the policy page. Therefore, I think this paragraph is an integral and important part of the decision as I have crafted it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I'm persuaded by Brad's argument here. Switching to support. Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Agree with Rlevse; this is always true. Cool Hand Luke 14:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vassyana (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

edit

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

edit
Enforcement is discussed in the remedies themselves, so I do not believe a separate "enforcement" provision is necessary here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No time to write a proposed enforcement, but I think something pointing here may help. Carcharoth (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion by Arbitrators

edit

General

edit

Motion to close

edit

Implementation notes

edit

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

All proposals pass at this time (in a couple of instances, because of the reduced majority created by an abstaining vote). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need a tally of whether remedy 1a.ii or 1a.iii has greater support. I have no strong preference either way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can close this case as soon as that is ironed out. To me 1a.iii appears to have greater support. Tiptoety talk 21:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 1a.iii has greater support, based on a simple count of first and second choices. The oppose and abstains cancel out when comparing 1a.ii and 1a.iii. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

edit

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast,
depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support
  1. Move to close. All the necessary steps toward a way forward are present in the decision as I originally drafted it and as would now be adopted. I understand the objection that insofar as it calls for Mattisse and mentors to submit a plan for addressing her editing issues, our decision is a way-station rather than the ultimate result. It may be that in retrospect, the better course would have been to adopt an interim decision suspending the case for that purpose and then resuming it when the plan is submitted, and we can bear that in mind in the event there are any future similar cases. But given that the plan will be presented to the committee for approval, ultimately the different procedures lead us to more-or-less the same place. Mattisse and some volunteer mentors have been working on some parameters as discussed in this decision, and I think it best to finalize our decision so as to start the clock running on the 15-day period within which the plan is to be submitted to us. Given the time that has already elapsed, if the plan is ready and submitted to us sooner, that would be even better. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Confirm, ready to close once there is a decision as between 1.a.ii and 1.a.iii. (I have no strong preference either way.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The mentors need to grab a sturdy hold of the reins now. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carcharoth (per email to arbcom-l) John Vandenberg (chat) 10:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Confirming the switch to support closing the case. Timestamp for purposes of closing the case should be the time John made the edit on my behalf. Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 15:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. --bainer (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Taking an alternative approach here, to actually finish off the case here and now, rather than approve or reject the plan behind closed doors. I've proposed a new principle and a new finding of fact, and am about to propose a remedy to have a (hopefully brief) public discussion, by arbitrators and those involved, of the plan, followed by an Arbitration Committee vote on a remedy to endorse or reject the plan, plus some guidance in the enforcement section. That should finish things off satisfactorily here, rather than leave the question of whether the plan is "satisfactory" hanging for 15 days. Carcharoth (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A plan has been submitted - we should review it now. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

edit

The below pages are both sourced from a Request for Clarification linked here

The voting for the motions can be found on a subpage here

The discussion from the original clarification can be found on a subpage here

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision&oldid=445337321"