Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:56, 4 January 2009 editBedford (talk | contribs)30,292 edits →Other users who endorse this summary← Previous edit Revision as of 22:51, 4 January 2009 edit undoCasliber (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators200,909 edits reply to OttavaNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 307: Line 307:
''Any users may post questions in this section.&nbsp; Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.'' ''Any users may post questions in this section.&nbsp; Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.''


'''Q.''' I do not intend this question to be pointy. I do not intend it to be an attack. I am not saying that there is a lack of good faith. This does not call into question any of the certifiers of this, especially since I respect those involved. However: Are we able to be neutral here? Is it possible that neutrality is possible when most of the originating complaints are over personal attacks that have an emotional impact upon the psyche, whether conscious or not? I know from my experience that I wished great harm or restraints to be brought upon people who have insulted me. However, I also recognize that such a thing is an emotional response, and neutrality would force me (and everyone else based on universal human qualities) to remove the emotional reactions and try to see what the problem is. Is this just because people are angry at another user, or is this because there is an actual problem? Is this user a net benefit and possibly just someone who steps on a lot of toes in the process? I'm not Mattisse's friend. My only interaction with her has been in conflict. However, I would not want this to turn into a sort of trial because the above user has said many, many things that have upset many people. We have temporary blocks to deal with that kind of thing, and we have abilities to avoid others. Is it possible that this could possibly lead to a lack of neutrality, result in a public shaming, and only cause greater harm in the long run? If so, who is next? When will my turn to be dragged through the mud come about? ] (]) 22:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
'''Q.'''


'''A.''' Good question. I created this RfC as I was frustrated with Mattisse's response to suggestions by others to change her ways. Of course I am not neutral, nor are others who have been on the receiving end of her invective, but the idea is that uninvolved people also look at the debate and decide whether or not I am being thin-skined or whether she has a case to answer and what to do about it. The other issue is that many comments taken in isolation are in a grey area with respect to a disruptive or civility threshold, but it is the ongoing stream which is so damaging to morale.
'''A.'''


This is like a community forum. Ottava, I get on well with you and can see your point of view often, but I see you have had issues with others. My best suggestion is to look forward and try to make up with people and find some common ground. Maybe we should take this elsewhere. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


'''Q.''' '''Q.'''

Revision as of 22:51, 4 January 2009

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

(For reference: Mattisse (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email))

Mattisse is a prolific editor at Misplaced Pages with over 55,000 edits. However Mattisse also has a history of difficulties in collaborative editing. This history goes back quite some time and manifests itself in many ways, making it difficult to exhaustively list all the incidents. There have been repeated issues at WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAN, WP:GAR, WP:DYK, WP:RFA and Editor review, among other places.

Mattisse continues to make frequent comments insinuating that there is a 'clique' of users around FAC and WP:FAR or a clique of administrators, etc... whose conduct is somehow questionable (Mattisse does not provide evidence of this when asked), and has misrepresented User:Casliber's behaviour as 'bullying' while refusing to engage in discussion on it. Attempts to engage often lead to responses which could be seen as paranoid or manipulative.

This behaviour is highly unpleasant and is not conductive to collegial editing. It is widespread enough that it is not hyperbole to say that it is corroding the morale of several contributors to the English Misplaced Pages.

Cause of concern

Since her earliest days on Wiki, and continuing to the present, there has been evidence of difficulties with collaboration (as an example, note these frustrated comments from FayssalF), understanding Wiki policies and assuming good faith, with repeated charges by her of an "in group" or "gangs of administrators" out to get her, and threats to leave when this is pointed out (a few examples: ) and a pattern of not taking responsibility for changing her behavior. When apparent sockpuppets were discovered (see Sockpuppets of Mattisse) Mattisse disclaimed the sockpuppet charges, but several were checkuser verified and several (such as ABSmyth (talk · contribs), Dattat (talk · contribs), NothingMuch (talk · contribs), Flinders (talk · contribs) and GBYork (talk · contribs)) are consistent with her editing and do not appear likely to have been from her grandchildren (the explanation offered at the time).

Mattisse also has a history of falling out with editors who befriend her: for example, Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) here, Dineshkannambadi (talk · contribs) (see this racist personal attack) and SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs).

An example of her difficulties with other editors, extending over an entire archive at User talk:Coppertwig during the Che Guevara FAR, starts here.

What follows are some additional samplings.

Disruption of Featured Article Review process

Che Guevara

Reference: Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1

There was consensus to begin restoring Che Guevara to featured status, work proceeding mutually with no issues, the article appeared to be on track to be restored, when Mattisse suddenly took offense but never explained why; the article was defeatured.

Claims that "only a few, select FAC editors are allowed to engage" at WP:FAR

Also, Bad faith assumptions on users Coppertwig and Redthoreau at Che Guevara.

Using WP:FAR for pointy nominations

Mattisse submitted Robert A. Heinlein to FAR on November 11. Less than 24 hours later, after a disagreement at Augustan literature (and because the FAR instructions permit only one nomination at a time), she withdrew and deleted the Heinlein FAR to submit Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Augustan literature/archive1 instead. (background from talk page.)

Disruption of the Good Article process

Good Article Nomination for Attachment therapy

After User:SandyGeorgia apparently happened across an article under GA review when correcting an articlehistory error and provided information about citations in the lead while there, Mattisse referred to the primary editor of the article as obsessed, and erroneously stated several times that the article "got passed because its editor was encouraged during the GA review by an FAC intruder (who jumped into the GA review process, just before the decision was made to pass) and declared the article close to FAC" and made personal attacks, also stating that "SandyGeorgia and company will probably interfere again", even after the editor passing the GA clarified that the pass had nothing to do with the mild comment about citations in the lead. Mattisse has a history of persisting with notions even after she has been told they are not correct.

Good Article Review for Brenda Song

Repeated bad faith assumptions at Jbmurray (talk · contribs) who started the GAR:

Disruption of the RfA process

Edit warring and disruption at Coppertwig's RFA (Mattisse had a lengthy dispute with Coppertwig over Che Guevara):

Unfounded and unstruck oppose at Epbr123's RFA, even after her errors were pointed out by several editors: Mattisse rarely strikes incorrect information, retracts, or apologizes even after her info has been shown incorrect.

Disruption of the Editor review process

Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Cosmic Latte provides a survey of some particularly nasty behavior from Mattisse. Samples:

  • "I realize you are a sidekick of Casliber (above) and apparently do the dirty work for him"
  • "I sincerely hope I do not encounter you again. It will not be with pleasure if I do. "

To which Cosmic Latte, doing his best to remain civil, replied in part

  • "I would suggest that accusing me of "setting a tone for ugliness" has the ironic effect of setting a similar tone here."

and MastCell observed to Mattisse:

  • "This is not "feedback". It's a petulant pursuit of a personal grudge. The point of Editor Review is to provide constructive feedback, both positive and negative. You passed that point a long time ago - this is just abuse."

Disruption of the Featured Article Candidacy process

Featured Article Candidacy for Reactive attachment disorder

Similar to what occurred at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder (as shall be detailed in more depth in a subsequenct section, as a detailed examination is instructive)... and which had to be restarted after Mattisse created at least a dozen sections), Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Reactive attachment disorder had to be restarted because of Mattisse's disruption. She frequently went off-topic, discussing other articles, including long lists of tangential items and off-topic commentary, and appeared to misunderstand the difference between the full-text of a journal article and a Pubmed abstract.

Constant disparagement of FAC process, derailing discussions at WT:FAC, leading other editors to suggest an archiving of the entire page: ,

Mattisse takes issue with the FAC process:

Mattisse disparages other editors as groupies:

Mattisse claims there is a cabal:

Mattisse is then challenged to substantiate the claims:

... but nothing comes of it except for astonishingly bad faith statements.

Later, an editor commments "Mattisse's comments are part of the reason why I don't want to participate at FAC. Instead of focusing on the criteria, its just an excuse to trash others." and finally the entire page is archived.


Major Depressive Disorder
Copyedits

Mattisse copyedits articles at FAC, but often introduces typographical and grammatical errors (that remain uncorrected until others fix them), some samples:

MEDRS

In a discussion at WP:MEDRS, another example of Mattisse frequently taking offense over misunderstandings and threatening to leave:

Personal attacks, grudge bearing, failure to AGF, and warnings

Frequent incorrect statements, left uncorrected

Inappropriate edit summaries

Mattisse often uses edit summaries (which remain in the article history even if the content of the edit is removed later) to disparage or attack other editors

Other

  • This odd exchange on Risker's talk page, where Mattisse appears to cast aspersions on Risker's impartiality in arb cases (whole thread linked) because Risker gave holiday greetings to some editors.
  • This exchange on Maralia's talk page, where Mattisse turns up to claim some rather outlandish things, quickly debunked by Maralia and Malleus Fatuorum.
  • On Misplaced Pages talk:Footnotes, Mattisse edits someone else's comment to strike out an article the other editor said they worked on, then after being reverted to restore the original words of the other editor, continues with a general disparaging tone about another editor's credit for an article Sagara Sanosuke, AGAIN modifying the words of another. This one gets Mattisse a warning on her talk, and Mattisse apologises, but qualifies it as "late at night", (per the usual pattern of not unqualifiedly ever admitting fault).

More recent comments around DYK

While possibly milder than some comments elsewhere, the general negative tone is ongoing, with broad negative aspersions cast after some initial measured comments.

Detailed analysis of a FAC candidacy

The following is a detailed analysis of a candidacy referred to above, as accounted by Casliber:

My first in-depth interaction with Mattisse came about while nominating major depressive disorder (MDD) at FAC, which was subsequently restarted. I admit that I did goof badly in the sourcing; alot of keen editors had been very helpful along the way and I had visions of a great group effort, but I was sloppy and didn't check the sources as closely as I should. Mattisse was instrumental in the proper sourcing of the article, but I really could have done without the gratuitous remarks along the way - the tone did deteriorate and I did lose my temper (see chronology below), however Mattisse repeated that I harassed and made personal attacks on her. and being 'driven off' I found this hard to take as my impression was that she started the confrontational tone and yet accused me of the same.

Timeline of MDD FAC

A sequence of interactions from the beginning of the FAC until the time of Eusebeus' support as follows:

  • here Mattisse joins in with some comments.
  • here Casliber replies 28 minutes later, agreeing with both, and then notifying Casliber had reworded 4 hours later.
  • here Mattisse highlights prose, which Casliber answered here and tried to fix up but was tricky.
  • here Casliber thinks Mattisse misinterprets him, as he didn't say he was going to use the word conjectural and he tries and clarify...
  • here Mattisses make a suggestion, and here Casliber agrees with Mattisse

The next few diffs we talk about rating scales, and Mattisse says this which is odd as the extra ref Casliber got Mattise later removed and Casliber replaced (???)

In the middle, PMID crashed

here Mattisse raises some good points, which had been very tricky to thresh out with good secondary sources, and Casliber did concede we did not get on the religion issue sooner, but it is frustrating to see it frequently talked about yet insanely hard to cite, until Casliber (finally) found one on google after juggling a bit

  • here Mattisse makes a note of primary sources, Casliber concedes it has taken time to whittle them out
  • here we are back to religion again but the mood is still good; Casliber is having no problem at this stage.

In between, Garrondo notes the 'non-asked for little speech'

  • ...and here it starts. Note Casliber does not/did not have a problem with paras 1-10, though was taken aback by "Further, I am shocked (naive as I am) that anyone would register a "Support" for this article on an important topic without carefully reading it through."
  • here Casliber begins explaining and trying to address.
  • here Mattisse pulls Casliber up on nihilism (which is actually mentioned in some psych textbooks, but she was right in that it wasn't the right word. Still Mattisse is starting to get bitey here. And here Casliber concedes the point.
  • here Mattisse chimes in and repeats herself again and complain about points not being addressed. This speech was uncalled for and quite threatening. There was material cropping up which Casliber was dealing with steadily, and had dealt with some of them by this time. Some refs were elusive.
  • here Casliber staying calm and positive
  • ....here - Mattisse complains of page length and decide to question other editors' supports.
  • here Casliber makes a measured comment as by this stage is becoming worn out by M's previous comments and Casliber says that "reams of self-righteous invective and feeling like I am being held to ransom." was pretty much what the comments felt like.
  • Mattisse apologises here
  • here Casliber tries and show his appreciation and note the points Mattisse has mentioned are valid.
  • So here Casliber tries to wave an olive branch.
  • here is a thankyou from Mattisse.
Aftermath

Casliber tried to raise this with Mattisse on her talk page (easier to read from there with Casliber's comments beginning in the middle.

  • here Mattisse feels Casliber's participation was not satisfactory (despite >200 edits ????) and states she thinks he has ADD. (Note that Casliber was bemused more than anything else by this)
  • To which Mattisse responds thus, describing a fear of being blocked for replying to Casliber.
  • 2nd segment suggests I threatened blocking her for opposing the mdd FAC.
  • here edit summary make comment about fear of Dweller blocking her for using the word 'damn'
  • here suggests my link with Dweller was used to drive her away from FAC.
  • and again that Casliber 'tried to get her blocked'.

Insinuations on conduct of (unspecified) group of users at FAC

As related above, Mattisse has asserted, or insinuated, that there exist conspiracies/cabals/cliques which operate in various areas, apparently partly to thwart Mattisse, multiple times. For example, thses diffs relate to allegations about users at the Featured Article Candidates page.

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith
Misplaced Pages:Civility
Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing
Misplaced Pages:Harassment
Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

Mattisse needs to assume good faith. Always. She needs to work collegially with other editors. Always. Some example improvements, not intended to be exhaustive...

  • Mattisse needs to either provide evidence for or drop allegations of an FAC, FAR or other cabal
  • Mattisse needs to desist from comments about the conduct of others that are untrue
  • Mattisse needs to stop making disparaging remarks about processes and editors
  • Mattisse needs to stop disrupting processes such as DYK, GAN, FAC, FAR, RfA etc. by stirring up controversy
  • Mattisse needs to use appropriate and collegial edit summaries

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC) begin, ended with section blanking, final reply from Mattisse
  2. This discussion went nowhere useful ++Lar: t/c 17:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Reluctantly, and after much thought. But this kind of thing has to stop. I'm not bothered about the "incivility", I'm only bothered about bringing the various review processes into disrepute. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


Other users who endorse this summary

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

  1. Not reluctantly. This kind of comment left me nonplussed at her lack of shame. I have, for the most part, ignored Mattisse's comments but they should be addressed. --Moni3 (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. I've been concerned with her activity at WT:DYK; seems she is only there to denigrate DYK, and adding nothing that could possibly be seen as helpful.--King Bedford I 21:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q. I do not intend this question to be pointy. I do not intend it to be an attack. I am not saying that there is a lack of good faith. This does not call into question any of the certifiers of this, especially since I respect those involved. However: Are we able to be neutral here? Is it possible that neutrality is possible when most of the originating complaints are over personal attacks that have an emotional impact upon the psyche, whether conscious or not? I know from my experience that I wished great harm or restraints to be brought upon people who have insulted me. However, I also recognize that such a thing is an emotional response, and neutrality would force me (and everyone else based on universal human qualities) to remove the emotional reactions and try to see what the problem is. Is this just because people are angry at another user, or is this because there is an actual problem? Is this user a net benefit and possibly just someone who steps on a lot of toes in the process? I'm not Mattisse's friend. My only interaction with her has been in conflict. However, I would not want this to turn into a sort of trial because the above user has said many, many things that have upset many people. We have temporary blocks to deal with that kind of thing, and we have abilities to avoid others. Is it possible that this could possibly lead to a lack of neutrality, result in a public shaming, and only cause greater harm in the long run? If so, who is next? When will my turn to be dragged through the mud come about? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A. Good question. I created this RfC as I was frustrated with Mattisse's response to suggestions by others to change her ways. Of course I am not neutral, nor are others who have been on the receiving end of her invective, but the idea is that uninvolved people also look at the debate and decide whether or not I am being thin-skined or whether she has a case to answer and what to do about it. The other issue is that many comments taken in isolation are in a grey area with respect to a disruptive or civility threshold, but it is the ongoing stream which is so damaging to morale.

This is like a community forum. Ottava, I get on well with you and can see your point of view often, but I see you have had issues with others. My best suggestion is to look forward and try to make up with people and find some common ground. Maybe we should take this elsewhere. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Q.

A.

Response

{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed.  Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}

Response to concerns

{Add summary here.}


Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q.

A.


Q.

A.


Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Outside view by

{Enter summary here.}

Users who endorse this summary:


Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute.  This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.  

Template

1) Mattisse to refrain from allegations of others' conduct without supplying evidence of same. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.