Case Opened on 08:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed on 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Karanacs (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
John Carter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (acting as advocate for Matisse)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3

Statement by Karanacs

I'm filing this as a response to the latest filing about Mattisse's activity. Although Mattisse can be an excellent content contributor and article reviewer (at GAN and FAC), her behavior at times is disruptive. At her most recent RfC (January), she was asked to refrain from making allegations of bad faith, to stop misrepresenting other editors' comments, to stop disrupting processes such as DYK, GAN, FAC, FAR, RfA, to stop making allegations of an FAC, FAR or other cabal that is out to get her, and to stop making personal attacks. Since then, she has been accused of many of these same behaviors at FAR (March) and at GAR (see ANI thread above), and she is still assuming bad faith [1] and compiling lists of people who she thinks are against her [2]. Patient engagement with the user is not getting anywhere in helping Mattisse to even understand that there could be a problem with her behavior, and I'm unsure what to do next to help Mattisse continue to make quality contributions without the lapses into disruption.

At this time, I'm not adding anyone else as a party, as this is more to address a pattern of behavior rather than a specific incident. Anyone who feels sufficiently involved is welcome to add to the list.

Response to Carcharoth

From my observances of Mattisse, it appears that she believes that multiple editors are out to drive her away from Wikipedia. It may be wise to expand the party list to include those editors listed in her most recent Plague/Torment list to see if there is any basis for that impression. That list of editors includes (besides me)

long-term interactions with User:Moni3, User:Jennavecia, User:Malleus Fatuorum, User:Casliber, User:Fainites, User:Awadewit, User:Maralia, User:Giano II, User:Tex, User:Bishonen, User:Risker, User:Lar, and User:SandyGeorgia.
more short-term interactions with User:Cirt, User:FloNight, User:Durova

I certainly don't want to go on a witch hunt, but to be fair Mattisse's concerns should probably be investigated as well. Karanacs (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Matisse

It is clear that there are many editors who wish to hurt me. They repeatedly bring up diffs that go back to 2006 when I started.

All I can offer is the wish that the Arbitration Committee actually look at the evidence that these editors have presented in the three RFC's that have been filed against me as proof that I am unfit for this project. I am not good at getting diffs and I cannot defend myself. I am very tired from the repeated accusations going back to 20 days after my first edit. The years have worn me down.

As well as looking at the evidence presented against me in the three RFCs, I wish that the Arbitration Committee would also look at my contributions to this project and weigh whether I am a net benefit or not. I cannot continue here if the past cannot be put away somehow. The constant accusations over three years have eroded my faith in my ability to carry on here. I am so very tired.

In every attempt I have made to communicate my side of the situation, I have made things worse. My good intentions end up being my enemy and give more evidence to those who wish to harm me. I admit that my behavior has deteriorated, as I truly am tired. I am intensely disliked by a frightening number of people here at Wikipedia, even those I have never heard of, and although I have worked hard for the project, I realize that it does not matter in the end and does not weigh in my favor. Rather, my passion and belief in the project have been my downfall. Therefore, whatever is decided is decided on the basis of the evidence in the three RFCs. I have nothing more in my defense but my work for the encyclopedia. If the evidence in those three RFCs weights against me, then I will accept a permanent ban as justice for the damage I have caused Wikipedia. Meanwhile, I will try to contribute to the encyclopedia as unobtrusively as possible, since I have received requests to continue. Hopefully, that is OK. Thank you. Regards, ~ —Mattisse (Talk) 01:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum by Mattisse: I fully acknowledge that some of my actions have been out of line, such as repeating another editor's words by bolding them, being POINTY, and other ill-considered moves. I truly apologize for these behaviors and the hurt and pain they have caused others. I am aware that I often do not communicate well under fear and stress. I am deeply afraid of the Arbitration process. Knowing the extent of my fear and how much this incapacitates me and prevents me from constructive participation, I am requesting that the Arbitration Committee allow another to speak for me. John Carter has offered to do so. I am praying that this is acceptable. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

It looks like this case may well be accepted. I was personally rather hoping it would not be. I've said before, my contact with Mattisse has been rather limited, but also generally positive. Having reviewed some of the material submitted by others, I can understand that might not be the case for all others, at least sometimes at least in part due to their own conduct. And I agree with several of the above that this matter, if the ArbCom takes it, will very likely have a number of recriminations cast about by all parties, probably without any real benefits to the project or the parties involved. Such a situation would be less than productive, and would almost certainly increase the feelings of ill-will among at least some of the parties involved. If the case is accepted, as it looks it may well be, I fervently hope that all parties involved show some measure of constraint during the proceedings. I can see that Mattisse's behavior may have in some cases been less than what we would hope for. The same can be said for several of the other people involved. Yeah, we're all human, what a surprise. But I sincerely hope that everyone involved will conduct themselves well during the proceedings, because the recriminations of several parties seem to be the root cause of this matter. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Mattisse mentioned "John Hill". I think s/he got the name wrong, but we have discussed the matter and I have agreed to speak for that party in this proceeding, if that is acceptable to the committee. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/0/4/0)

Accept. This looks like it's been building up for some time, and accordingly I think it should be looked into. Wizardman 19:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. With regard to the timing of this vote, I note that Matisse has expressly declined to file a statement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Mattisse has now made a statement, I have reconsidered my vote anew. Having done so, my "accept" stands. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse as an involved and non-impartial person. I will say something in the previous section. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse, although I do encourage acceptance of the case. I may make a statement or (if the case is accepted) provide evidence in the future. Risker (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse - I had an unpleasant encounter with Matisse as an administrator in the past. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am wary of trials in absentia. Despite Matisse declining to participate, I would like to see a statement from Matisse or at least a statement made by someone on her behalf. I will ask at her talk page if she is willing to make a statement here, or whether someone would be willing to make a statement on her behalf. Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Threaded discussion removed. 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had the following exchange at Matisse's talk page. I suggest that no case be opened or accepted for 48 hours while Matisse takes time to think about this, and if Matisse has not responded by then (or entered a statement above), that a motion be proposed at that point acknowledging Matisse's contributions and noting her stated desire to leave the project, and requiring her to contact ArbCom if she wishes to resume editing. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Accept - have been noting the later statements asking for this to be dealt with sensitively and for the need to avoid a train-wreck of a case. I will try (partially responding to Looie here) to help this case be dealt with expeditiously and try and help minimise any drama (I fear attempts at community sanction might involve said drama). Noting here that areas like featured article candidate discussions (and reviews), by their nature, do involve editors that often need to work closely together, but that long-term disputes can arise due to personality issues that go beyond disputes over intellectual principles. I think I would be correct to say that the aim here is to minimise disruption to the featured content production process, while trying to maintain (even increase) the input of good and excellent reviews (without sideshows of drama). What might be best here is to discuss several options during the case and see which will get the best results while still being workable. If anyone is aware of any previous cases like this (within or outside arbitration or mediation), please can they let us know. My view, from what I've read so far, is that people's views on this depend on which aspect of Mattisse they have encountered, and if they encountered both the good and the bad, whether they think the good outweighs the bad, or vice-versa. I will be aiming for a balanced view, and I would urge those submitting evidence to aim for that as well, or to at least to make clear how extensive their interactions with Mattisse have been. One other question I will have is how common is it for featured content discussions themselves, and the people involved in them, to end up in disputes, is some level of dispute needed in such a process, and how are other such disputes normally handled? Carcharoth (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If Mattisse confirms she meant John Carter, I have no problems having him act as an advocate in this case, and had already suggested that such might be appropriate. Carcharoth (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Roger Davies ^talk 02:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. On May 06, added by Mattisse to the Torment List after I commented on a GAR. Then invited to participate in this case. Since I've not had other significant interaction with her that I recall, I don't think a statement is needed beyond this comment and recuse. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Abstain. There are certainly long-term issues here. However, I feel strongly that an arbitration case is not the best way forward. I would strongly encourage everyone involved to seek another way to resolve their concerns. Arbitration is a blunt instrument not well suited to resolving nuanced issues, especially in a case where the adversarial nature of the process is likely to exacerbate the situation. --Vassyana (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Clearly a long-running problem of a serious nature. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor conduct and decorum

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Evaluating user conduct

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Repetition of improper conduct

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship and similar arrangements

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Mattisse's contributions

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.

Passed 9 to 0 (with 1 abstain) at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse's behavior

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."

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Prior attempts at resolution

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse's development of a plan

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Remedies

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

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.)

Passed 5 to 4 (with 1 abstain) at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Adoption of proposed plan (3)

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.

Passed 8 to 1 (with 1 abstain) at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse banned conditionally

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.)

Passed 5 to 4 (with 1 abstain) at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse restricted

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.

Passed 8 to 1 (with 1 abstain) at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuing jurisdiction

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.

Passed 7 to 1 (with 2 abstains) at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

03:17, August 28, 2009 J.delanoy blocked Mattisse with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: checkuser block; this user is the owner of User:CallMeNow)
22:34, November 11, 2009 Geometry guy blocked Mattisse with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing caused by stress)
00:50, November 12, 2009 SilkTork changed block settings for Mattisse with an expiry time of 31 hours (Negative comments on another Wikipedia editor)
23:51, November 12, 2009 Geometry guy changed block settings for Mattisse with an expiry time of 2009-11-13T19:50:13Z (Extend preventative block by 12 hours to allow further review by others)
18:50, November 13, 2009 SilkTork changed block settings for Mattisse with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Extend preventative block by 24 hours. The block will be undone earlier if Mattisse strikes her negative comments)
20:56, December 8, 2009 User:Geometry guy blocked Mattisse with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (Posting at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification without consultating advisors, contrary to warning by User:SilkTork)
22:21, December 8, 2009 User:Geometry guy changed block settings for Mattisse with an expiry time of 2009-12-09T20:56:43Z‎ (Extend to 24 hours per original warning and unapologetic response)
00:11, January 18, 2010 User:Geometry guy banned Mattisse from 2010 Haiti earthquake and its talk page for 36 hours from this timestamp
16:40, January 19, 2010 User:Geometry guy banned Mattisse indefinitely from 2010 Haiti earthquake and its talk page.[3]
19:00, February 1, 2010 User:RegentsPark banned Mattisse for 48 hours from Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates [4]
09:53, February 11, 2010 User:SilkTork blocked Mattisse with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Negative and provocative comments on another Wikipedia editor)
08:28, 12 February 2010 User:SilkTork changed block settings for Mattisse (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2010-02-13T09:53:03Z (account creation blocked) ‎ (Continued negative comments on other editors. Block extended 24 hours. Will lift when Mattisse apologises)
17:46, 12 February 2010 User:RegentsPark unblocked "Mattisse (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Previous block was not per plan)
04:20, 1 March 2010 User:SirFozzie blocked Mattisse with an expiry time of indefinite (Block evasion: Creating Multiple accounts to attack another editor)
Mr. Unsigned Not worth it (talk · contribs), ChrisCopo (talk · contribs) and Charles Rodriguez (talk · contribs) also blocked on March 1
01:45, March 9, 2010 User:Laser brain changed block settings for Mattisse with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (The community will no longer be entertaining your comments and queries; please take the advice you've been given.)
01:32, March 15, 2010 User:The ed17 changed block settings for User:Charles Rodriguez with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (.reblocking with talk page access disallowed; unblocking requests need to go to the functionaries mailing list)

Continued at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mattisse

Clarification motions

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 13:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 13:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

Passed 7 to 0 (1 abstained) at 13:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

Passed 7 to 1 at 13:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 13:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion 10

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

Passed 7 to 1 at 13:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion 11

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

Passed 5 to 1 (1 abstained) at 13:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)