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 04:49, 6 January 2009 editCasliber (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators200,909 edits there is no motion here to ban,block or sanction Mattisse. I will say (again) that her contributions are often very helpful and I am happy for her to continue to do so. However, she must refrain from← Previous edit Revision as of 06:14, 6 January 2009 edit undoMattisse (talk | contribs)78,542 edits →Response: add responses to accuatory comments - apparently I saved them on the wrong page beforeNext edit →
Line 413: Line 413:
*'''Personal attacks, grudge bearing, failure to AGF, and warnings''' *'''Personal attacks, grudge bearing, failure to AGF, and warnings'''
*'''Comment''' - I'm glad you paid so much attention to a situation where I was done in. An article that I was proud of and had just gotten a DYK for was merged without discussion into another article that was a mess. At first I tried to argue to have the merge at least discussed. No dice there. An article can be merge without discussion into another. Next I tried to fix the references taken from my article and misapplied to the other one incorrectly. Then I essentially had to do a new article while the other editor did nothing. I don't want to even get into it. It is one of the reasons I will never enter a mediation again. My well referenced article was redirected into obviation and the good wording and references cut and pasted incorrectly into the other article (which still remains a mess, needed references etc.) *'''Comment''' - I'm glad you paid so much attention to a situation where I was done in. An article that I was proud of and had just gotten a DYK for was merged without discussion into another article that was a mess. At first I tried to argue to have the merge at least discussed. No dice there. An article can be merge without discussion into another. Next I tried to fix the references taken from my article and misapplied to the other one incorrectly. Then I essentially had to do a new article while the other editor did nothing. I don't want to even get into it. It is one of the reasons I will never enter a mediation again. My well referenced article was redirected into obviation and the good wording and references cut and pasted incorrectly into the other article (which still remains a mess, needed references etc.)

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

* http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mattisse/Archive_17#Sweeping_statement.3B_apology_requested
:*Please see ] where Calisber says, "We're getting there, there is no need to repeat yourself. Keeping comments brief, constructive and to the point is appreciated. I come here in my own free time to edit as I enjoy it - '''I do not enjoy being subjected to reams of self-righteous invective and feeling like I am being held to ransom'''. I am trying; it is a big article and there is alot to cover. I am sorry you were reverted which set you off like this, and I am sorry your comments were interspersed above. '''I think that casting aspersions on other established editors as lazy at best and dishonest at worst is bordering on a ]'''. I advise you to keep comments short, constructive and to the point and avoid making assumptions about others. '''Lengthy rants have the appearance of filibustering to disrupt this to make a point, I hope that is not the case.''' I welcome your constructive feedback and will try to work to address concerns."
::*Although I originally apologized to him after he made the comment above, he continued to spend time righting other articles, gathers many DYKs while I was working on the article full time. My comments were interspersed with others, because days went by before Casliber answered them, so quite naturally the page became full of intervening comments off the topic. After a while, I could no longer find my own comments, nor tell who had said what. If Casliber had answer comments in a timely manner this could have been avoided. Also, several times Cosmic Latte would report that a concern had been remedied, but later when I checked, it had not be. The worst example was his continued use of primary, outdated references, even after claiming they had been replaced. So I continued to be frustrated and confused over whether my comments had been addressed adequately. I definitely had the feeling that I was not taken seriously.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mattisse/Archive_17#Comment_on_content.2C_not__the_contributor
::*I had originally believed Malleus when he said that I could comment freely on his page, and indeed he allowed and encouraged it. He never indicated I had crossed a line. "Block happy admins" is a phrase Malleus uses quite frequently. I was assured I could ventilate on his page and believed it. Now I know I was naive and wrong. I did not know that then. I apologize for my ignorance.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mattisse/Archive_17#for_me
* With an edit summary of: ''Blueboar - it is in your interest to have me permanently blocked - you are a hypocrite''
*

'''Responses to more accusatory links'''
* A notebook about power and how truth can be distorted by those who "run things". (memories are made of this) &mdash;] (]) 03:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
::*Actually, I do not understand this one. It is a link to a timeline ] was keeping regarding the feud between Malleus and Gimmatrow regarding the ] article. SandyGeorgia was supporting Gimmatrow.
* - Arbcom - more memories!
:*This is a link to the Arbcom decision of the resolution of the feud between SandyGeorgia and SlimVirgin that seemed not to make any kind of concrete decision but walk down the middle.
* - ANI block is unwarranted
:*This is a link to the AN/I discussion saying that ]'s threatened block of me was unwarranted and that Calisber clearly knew my remarks were a joke and not something blockable.
* - have a look in my archives, courtesy of??!
*:This is a link to ]'s page where SandyGeorgia supplies her with some links to my archives (thats when I knew she spent a lot of time looking through my archives) and suggests to Jennavecia that she block me based on material in my archives.
*, , ] - wow - remember this one!!
:*These are links to an RFA where SandyGeorgia tried to sabotage the RFA for Wehwalt by suggesting that we were coluding in a 3-RR evasion. Others did not see it that way, fortunately, but she tried.
* - cutting you loose, you t---
:*This is an example of the kind of language SandyGeorgia's favorites can use with impunity (I could not, of course):
:::"Ottava, you cant be helped, you cant listen and your personality, I now realise is septic. I'm cutting you loose, and I regret that you think so little of the people who genuinly tried to help and I was sucked in for so long. With all due respect, "I relied on others beyond you" -You conceted duplicitious bitter twat. "You were only there because of my political enemies at the time, who are now non-existent" - User, see last cmt. "None of the emails that I would have mentioned are necessarily private" - Remind me and anybody else never to trust you. "My "tenditiousness" is non-existent" - You have no self awarness. "One editor wanted to derail" - Oh whatever, I can only stomach only so much bullshit at once. "I don't like Mattisse nor ever have" - Yeah but she plyed you like a violin. "the aesthetics of formatting" - Gimme a break, aesthetics had nothing to do with your argument. As so often with people with narrow horisons you fell back on rules to guide you. Remember you said FA=MOS. You stupid stupid fool to isolate yourself like this. But your choice. ] (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)"
----
* - FAC quid pro quo! This is in response to Sandy Dearest's attempt to sabatogue an RFA for an innocent posting of mine.
::*Here, on of SandyGeorgia's favorites, ] promises to review 200 FAC in return for a reward. This was especially ironic as it came after her accusations of a 3-RR colusion
, , ]
::*These three are the attempts to sabotage the RFA for Wehwalt

* a quid pro quo for SG
:* a repeat of the link to the quid pro quo
* dear Maralia throws bestirs the fires.
:* apparently another link to the quid pro quo (I'm not very good at links)
* I'm SO upset!
:*SandyGeorgia has apparently relayed my private note from my archive to favorite ], who is consequently so upset. And includes ], another favorite who is upset.
* This was wrong - MF
:* a link from Malleus saying essential stop bothering about trivia of what Mattisse says - you can see how SandyGeorgia is apt at stirring things up for me.
* OR insight?
*: another link about my quid pro quo note to myself being spread around SandyGeorgia's group
* OR wikilawyering
:* more spreading around by the ingroup of my quid pro qo comment that has upset everyone so - mind you this comment was not made to any of them. Only because SandyGeorgia monitors everything was it even known.
* don't forget the plethora of emails - this is so all will be transparent
:*Talk of the plethora of email they all send to each other, to maintain their ingroup agenda without the transparency of posting.


'''Final comment''' '''Final comment'''

Revision as of 06:14, 6 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: 02:18, 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)
  4. I believe that Mattisse has a lot to offer, but the way she chooses to participate makes things much harder for everyone else. I've tried multiple times to get Mattisse to assume good faith and tone down the rhetoric and have had no luck. Karanacs (talk) 16:16, 5 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)
  3. My earliest encounters with Mattisse were when she approached me for assistance in her disputes with other editors. Although she could not satisfactorily explain the previous disputes she had been involved in, I nevertheless agreed to help her if she would avoid personal attacks, edit warring and the other issues that had gotten her into previous disputes. Yet, within days of my offer to help, she lodged a strident personal attack: a pattern repeated often afterwards involving many processes and many editors. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground and Misplaced Pages is not therapy; I hope Mattisse will take the counsel provided by other editors below to heart, and find more effective ways of resolving misunderstandings or concerns without disrupting Wiki processes and disparaging other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. A perplexing editor - capable of oustanding contributions, that reveal considerable intellect and desire to help, yet also combative, niggling, disruptive and broad-brushing other good faith contributors with bad faith accusations. --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. I agree with Dweller. Many outstanding and civil contributions on the one hand yet repeated pointless bad faith assumptions on the other, followed by victimhood when users react. On the Attachment therapy GAR - this kicked off with these comments, inaccurate, unwarranted and pointlessly offensive and creating a sort of "witchunt" atmosphere. Also misrepresentations of other editors positions as set out by Casliber above. Difficult to take the GAR seriously after that even though many of her substantive comments were valid and reasonable. The basis for such personal abuse and bad faith allegations appeared to be some issue Matisse has with SandyGeorgia dating back to one FAC from nearly a year ago. I see this kind of behaviour has been repeated in a number of venues. I hope Matisse can see that editors she may disagree with are worthy of basic WP:AGF. Made me think I certainly wouldn't bother with GA's in the future.Fainites scribs 20:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. Based upon the diffs provided, something definitely has to give here. SDJ 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. My interaction with Mattisse started way back, in early 2007. Mattisse was helping me with copy edits and was doing a good job of it. She showed interest in the subject as well and seemed very friendly. Then things began to change around June 2007. She became very unpredictible but made it clear she was in stress. She came back and wanted to continue to work with me.]. But within a short period of time, it became clear she was not interested in working with me. But things did not stop there. I dont want to paste various comments made by her showing her bitterness towards me and the Karnataka work group, which I to date, have not been able to fathom. I just decided to stop having communication with her other than answering her questions on my FAC, or an FAR and such. Her recent personal attack on me at the FAR talk page, even as an FAR was nominated on one of my FA's was shocking ]. This was a clear attempt create a bias. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:15, 6 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)

(additional answer from Lar) - Ottava, I share your concern. But what is desired here is not a lynching, it is a change in behaviour. Take a look at the desired outcome, above. The things being asked for are things that, really, we expect of every editor... not to disrupt processes, not to disparage processes and people, not to make meanspirited and spiteful edit summaries, and so forth... in short, to be a collegial editor. We are all big boys and girls here, we can take a bit of imperfect conversation, we're not lilies to be protected. But this is not something about someone making one short tempered remark, this is about a pattern of behaviour that has to change. It's long term, it's corrosive, and it's impacting significant swathes of the project. I hope Mattisse heeds this wakeup call and thinks seriously about this. ++Lar: t/c 02:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(comment from SilkTork): I also recognise the concern. I had an encounter with Mattisse when I was her AMA advocate back in January 2007, and the encounter ended up being very distressing. The sores from that are such that I would question my ability to be fair. I would like to think I would be fair, as that is the nature of what most of us do here on Misplaced Pages - we put our personal feelings aside and look impartially at what is best for the community. We deal with angry people, and respond calmly. We pride ourselves on our ability to not rise to baiting. However, Mattisse is a special case. She has a knack for annoying a wide range of people - she has a way of getting under the skin, winning trust, and then betraying that trust in the most breath-taking manner. This RfC may end up being divided into supportive comments from those who have not experienced the bad side of Mattisse, and less than supportive comments from those who have been hurt. I hope not. But this relevant and important question should keep us alert to that probability. Thanks for asking it. SilkTork * 10:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Q.

A.

Response

I am not sure how to respond to the above indictment. Since it begins with my behavior 2 1/2 years ago, I guess I will start there.

  1. I was never shown a checkuser and I do not believe these were my sockpuppets although they may have come from my computer
  2. They operated for only a few months and made relatively few edits. Some made no edits.
  3. Some of them created articles that are still on Misplaced Pages today.
  4. Some of them may have been imitating me.
  5. There were few times they stacked votes or performed improperly, even if they were sock puppets. And I have since learned that joke sock puppets are allowed. I have also learned that admins and others regularly have unauthorized sock puppets.
  • Conclusion It has been stated as long as two years ago that my behavior should not be hung like an albatross around my neck and the sock puppets should no longer be mentioned regarding me, yet this RFC perpetuates it. Since there is no way to change the past, and people are unwilling to let go of this, I should be further punished for this incident.
  • Allegation Two - Cause for concern

Cause One - "Since her earliest days on Wiki, and continuing to the present, there has been evidence of difficulties with collaboration (as an example, note frustrated comments of User:FayssalF"

  1. As reflected in the AN/I diff from a thread filed by User:Zeraeph - Psychopathy_article_and_User:Mattisse, FayssalF says he does not know me but only knows my name because of frequent reports. I am unaware of these "frequent reports" as after the the sock puppet ring of Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Ekajati was caught, I was not to my knowledge reported on AN/I.
  2. SandyGeorgia voted against User:FayssalF in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/FayssalF, based in his response to me (above)
  3. Oppose. Last year I entered only one vote, in support, but this is uncalled for, uninformed, unhelpful judgmental, and turned the black pot of frequent forum shoppers onto the kettle. ArbCom members should be well informed before passing judgment on an editor seeking help in a difficult situation, and when they opine on an issue, they should strive to remember what it's like "out there" dealing with difficult editors and to be very well informed before lodging opinions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. In this post, SandyGeorgia is voting against Fayssalf because of the same "frustrated comments of User:FayssalF" that she condemns me for above.
  • Conclusion - I am confused. This is the beginning of the incident over the Psychopathy article in which User:Zeraeph was blocked for 3-RR and shortly shortly unblocked by User:SlimVirgin, continuing a feud between SandyGeorgia and Slimvirgin that ended up in and arbitration case, which was subsequently renamed to remove Sandy's and SlimVirgins name Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph. I am not sure what I did so awful here. Perhaps someone could enlighten me. Therefore, I am not sure how I should be punished.
  • Cause two - "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:" )
  • This is an odd collection, and some may show me frustrated and, as a newbie, confused, but nothing more that what I see ordinarily on pages everyday. All but two are from 2006.
  • 10-23-08 regarding Geometry Guy with whom I have a good working relationship. He didn't seem upset.
  • - 8-21-06 This was a misunderstanding. Maury did not think he needed citations on his article. He subsequently gave me a barnstar so there were no hard feelings.
  • - 8-22-06 this again was about asking for references to article which I subsequently received a barnstar from Maury
  • - 8-22-06 Just more with Maury
  • - 5-26-06 This was 20 days after my first ever edit. I was frustrated my not understanding some technical aspects - Mensch and Tom TheHand remained friends after this. They were understanding and did not seem upset.
  • 10-12-06 - Don't see anything wrong here - because I used the word "crap"- nothing that I don't see regularly on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum pages or User:Ceoil or other SandyGeorgia people plus got a barnstar from Netsnipe plus I get thanked for helping in India article.
  • ) - 3-20-08 - I used SandyGeorgia's name but other than that, there is some explaining to be how to report a 3-RR without it being "malformed" - some discussion with User:Coppertwig who was trying to help. (I was frustrated) and eventually Salix alba fixed it for me

-- Barnstars --

A Barnstar! The Working Man's Barnstar
Awarded to Mattisse for her tireless work on cleaning up countless of articles on small and often overlooked places around the world by  Netsnipe    on 03:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
A Barnstar! Resilient Barnstar
Awarded to Mattisse for becoming a better editor, even thought the advice was offered in the midst of a dispute. Maury 12:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Conclusion - don't know what to make of these diffs. I have no problems with any of the editors involved. One of the diff came on my 20th day of editing ever. All but two were in 2006. Remember also, the sock puppet gang started after me in July 2006 and were not caught until January of 2007 so, yes, at times I was frazzled. And I had trouble understanding wiki. Still can't do most things others can. Perhaps someone can tell the appropriate punishment for this.


  • Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) - well, here I did as SandyGeorgia often does, "comment and dewatch". I realized that his page was doing me harm and that, although I had been told repeatedly to freely post there, actually my posts were being used against me. An admin even threatened to block me for a minor comment, so I realized that page and that person was not something I could associate with. You can blame me for that.
  • Dineshkannambadi (talk · contribs) - I have 702 posts on his talkpage from all the copy editing I did. Plus probably just as many letters. We were working on an article in a sandbox which he agreed he would move so I would get my edits recorded. Instead he did a copy/paste. I told him I wasn't going to copy edit for him any more. He was very angry with me. The "racist personal attack" I did not know was racist at the time. I just knew that every time I tried to work on a Tamil article, one of Dinesh's friends would trash it. I have an email from SandyGeorgia stating she was aware of ethnic tensions on FAC but there was nothing she could do about it.
  • SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) - I am not clear why you befriended me so suddenly and seemed to expect certain behavior from me - this during a very confusing time. But anyone who stalks me, collects diffs from 2006, knows my every post and thought, is not my friend anyway. I grew tired of you following me and one day when I was posting to another, I got six orange flashes from you in just a short span of time, complaining about my posts. At that point I told you to find something else to do other than follow me around. I guess that earned me your emnity for ever and ever and hence this RFC. I know I am not allowed to post on your talk page. And I know you often post under me with a not so nice remark on FAC. One of the problems with the FAC on MDD was that you would post under me and change the subject so that my question would get lost. I also don't appreciate your refactoring my comments on article talk pages so that my comment is taken out of the discussion.
  • Conclusion - I think if SandyGeorgia stopped watching my every move, she would be less disturbed. Nothing I said on the Che Guevara page was any big deal, no one cared or was interested, and why was she so interested in a rambling, POV talk page of an article that will never go to FAC anyway? Here, I think the problem is that SandyGeorgia needs to stop worrying about my every move, looking for things to get me on. (Above that is called by the filers of this RFC "seemingly paranoid". I think it is the reality and this RFC is evidence. If SandyGeorgia assumed good faith, there would be no problem.
  • Allegation three - Disruption of Featured Article Review process
  • Che Guevara
  • Comment - I do not have the stamina or the time to read through the Archives. It is quite clear that SandyGeorgia wants to drive me away from FAC and probably Misplaced Pages entirely. All I can say is that, yes, emotions become inflamed over political issues. I would remind you that User:Coppertwig and User:Redthoreau controlled the content of that article for quite a while. Since User:Coppertwig dropped out, Redthoreau has been blocked at least four time for content disputes. Recently I even offered to help Redthoreau with his recent block and he was receptive so I don't think there are any long lasting bitterness there, except for SandyGeorgia's. User:Coppertwig is always understanding and never carries gudges so I have no worries there. I feel I could ask him for advice or help at any time. Please assume good faith.
  • Using WP:FAR for pointy nominations - You misinterpret the Robert Heinlein issue. After I nominated it I realized people were working on it. Please read User:Durova's outside view for a more reasoned analysis. Please assume good faith.
  • Good Article Review for Brenda Song'
  • Comment - Again I wonder what the fuss is here. Gimmetrow, whose article is was, sent me a post to thank me for my review and assure me the two of use were on good ground. Yes, I was tired of SandyGeorgia jumping into my business and also at Jbmurry, but he retracted his support of the article and, as Geometry Guy said, SandyGeorgia was pulled up short for her ill considered comments as she commented without knowing the GAR process which she makes clear she disdains, as she makes clear she does about everything to do with GA.
  • Conclusion - If SandyGeorgia insists on making a big issue about everything I do that she disapproves of, spanning not just FAC, but GA and everything else I do, then I cannot remain at Misplaced Pages.
  • Disruption of the RfA process
  • Comment OK, I make a mistake and did not handle that well. Is that RFC material that my comments had to be moved to the talk page? I think SandyGeorgia has little grounds to bewail that I objected to her protegee. I may vote for whom I want in a RFA. However, she tried (but failed) to disrupt a recent RFC for User:Wehwalt by accusing me of 3-RR collusion in a pointy Oppose which other dismissed as groundless, fortunately. She did not retract it, strike it , apologize etc.
  • Disruption of the Editor review process
  • Comment - if giving my opinion is considered "disruption", then I certainly did no worse there than what is being done to me here. Please read Snowman's view as a participant of both the FAC for the MDD and the editorial review of which you speak. Please also read the view of User:Silk Tork and no that he gave me a barnstar for MDD after reading through the whole FAC.
  • Disruption of the Featured Article Candidacy process
  • Comment - SandyGeorgia requested me to review Reactive attachment disorder, not something I wanted to do. Apparently that is held against me as another reason to ban me from FAC. As far as my comments on pages related and unrelated to FAC, I am allowed to speak my thoughts. If others object, they can tell me. It hardly needs an RFC to let me know. As far as comments about FAC, if you, SandyGeorgia
  1. Stop making constant negative comments about GA, GAN and GAR, as well as DYK then I will stop
  2. Stop repeatedly posting under my comments at FAC about how the article has become degraded or typos introduced. I get the message - you do not want me at FAC.
  3. Stop refactoring my comments so that they get lost in discussions and my question don't get answered.
  4. Stop making clear your disdain for me and my work on FAC. Stop disparaging everything I do. You refused to recognize the major work I did on MDD - instead this RFC is the result of the fact that SnowmanRadio and I fixed that article up to FAC quality.
  5. Stop praising effusively your favorites and ignoring the work of those who labor hard but are not in you in group.
  6. Stop protecting your favorites from blockable offenses while trying to get me blocked.
  • Major Depressive Disorder

The ALL CAPs issue is a false one. It pertained to inline notes in the article, which one person objected to but others, including Calisber, said he preferred them because they were easier to find. (You are crawling through my archives for this kind of stuff?)

  • I am not sure what this is supposed to prove. As someone pointed out on AN/I the comment was made on my talk page and Calisber knew it was a joke. He posted it on a FAC page, so Dweller would block me. That is the kind of atmosphere Calisber created for me. Aside from his personal attacks on me moved to the FAC talk page*'

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

  • Comments - O.K. I get the point. I am a net negative to FAC and you want me to go away. FAC belongs to SandyGEorga and I can see that I will no longer be allowed there.
  • MEDRES - - Here I am too sensitive because i say I leave the page. Why are not all those other affronted people you accuse me attacking and destroying told they are too sensitive also? It seems there is no way for me to go. No place I can comment where the eyes of SandyGeorgia are not watching and recording.
  • Personal attacks, grudge bearing, failure to AGF, and warnings
  • Comment - I'm glad you paid so much attention to a situation where I was done in. An article that I was proud of and had just gotten a DYK for was merged without discussion into another article that was a mess. At first I tried to argue to have the merge at least discussed. No dice there. An article can be merge without discussion into another. Next I tried to fix the references taken from my article and misapplied to the other one incorrectly. Then I essentially had to do a new article while the other editor did nothing. I don't want to even get into it. It is one of the reasons I will never enter a mediation again. My well referenced article was redirected into obviation and the good wording and references cut and pasted incorrectly into the other article (which still remains a mess, needed references etc.)
  • Personal attacks, grudge bearing, failure to AGF, and warnings
  • Please see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Major_depressive_disorder/restart#Moved where Calisber says, "We're getting there, there is no need to repeat yourself. Keeping comments brief, constructive and to the point is appreciated. I come here in my own free time to edit as I enjoy it - I do not enjoy being subjected to reams of self-righteous invective and feeling like I am being held to ransom. I am trying; it is a big article and there is alot to cover. I am sorry you were reverted which set you off like this, and I am sorry your comments were interspersed above. I think that casting aspersions on other established editors as lazy at best and dishonest at worst is bordering on a personal attack. I advise you to keep comments short, constructive and to the point and avoid making assumptions about others. Lengthy rants have the appearance of filibustering to disrupt this to make a point, I hope that is not the case. I welcome your constructive feedback and will try to work to address concerns."
  • Although I originally apologized to him after he made the comment above, he continued to spend time righting other articles, gathers many DYKs while I was working on the article full time. My comments were interspersed with others, because days went by before Casliber answered them, so quite naturally the page became full of intervening comments off the topic. After a while, I could no longer find my own comments, nor tell who had said what. If Casliber had answer comments in a timely manner this could have been avoided. Also, several times Cosmic Latte would report that a concern had been remedied, but later when I checked, it had not be. The worst example was his continued use of primary, outdated references, even after claiming they had been replaced. So I continued to be frustrated and confused over whether my comments had been addressed adequately. I definitely had the feeling that I was not taken seriously.
  • I had originally believed Malleus when he said that I could comment freely on his page, and indeed he allowed and encouraged it. He never indicated I had crossed a line. "Block happy admins" is a phrase Malleus uses quite frequently. I was assured I could ventilate on his page and believed it. Now I know I was naive and wrong. I did not know that then. I apologize for my ignorance.

Responses to more accusatory links

  • Actually, I do not understand this one. It is a link to a timeline User:Jennavecia was keeping regarding the feud between Malleus and Gimmatrow regarding the Brenda Song article. SandyGeorgia was supporting Gimmatrow.
  • - Arbcom - more memories!
  • This is a link to the Arbcom decision of the resolution of the feud between SandyGeorgia and SlimVirgin that seemed not to make any kind of concrete decision but walk down the middle.
  • - ANI block is unwarranted
  • This is a link to the AN/I discussion saying that User:Dweller's threatened block of me was unwarranted and that Calisber clearly knew my remarks were a joke and not something blockable.
  • - have a look in my archives, courtesy of??!
    This is a link to User:Jennavecia's page where SandyGeorgia supplies her with some links to my archives (thats when I knew she spent a lot of time looking through my archives) and suggests to Jennavecia that she block me based on material in my archives.
  • , , RFA - Wehwalt - wow - remember this one!!
  • These are links to an RFA where SandyGeorgia tried to sabotage the RFA for Wehwalt by suggesting that we were coluding in a 3-RR evasion. Others did not see it that way, fortunately, but she tried.
  • - cutting you loose, you t---
  • This is an example of the kind of language SandyGeorgia's favorites can use with impunity (I could not, of course):
"Ottava, you cant be helped, you cant listen and your personality, I now realise is septic. I'm cutting you loose, and I regret that you think so little of the people who genuinly tried to help and I was sucked in for so long. With all due respect, "I relied on others beyond you" -You conceted duplicitious bitter twat. "You were only there because of my political enemies at the time, who are now non-existent" - User, see last cmt. "None of the emails that I would have mentioned are necessarily private" - Remind me and anybody else never to trust you. "My "tenditiousness" is non-existent" - You have no self awarness. "One editor wanted to derail" - Oh whatever, I can only stomach only so much bullshit at once. "I don't like Mattisse nor ever have" - Yeah but she plyed you like a violin. "the aesthetics of formatting" - Gimme a break, aesthetics had nothing to do with your argument. As so often with people with narrow horisons you fell back on rules to guide you. Remember you said FA=MOS. You stupid stupid fool to isolate yourself like this. But your choice. User:Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)"
  • - FAC quid pro quo! This is in response to Sandy Dearest's attempt to sabatogue an RFA for an innocent posting of mine.
  • Here, on of SandyGeorgia's favorites, User:GrahamColm promises to review 200 FAC in return for a reward. This was especially ironic as it came after her accusations of a 3-RR colusion

, , RFA - Wehwalt

  • These three are the attempts to sabotage the RFA for Wehwalt
  • a quid pro quo for SG
  • a repeat of the link to the quid pro quo
  • dear Maralia throws bestirs the fires.
  • apparently another link to the quid pro quo (I'm not very good at links)
  • I'm SO upset!
  • SandyGeorgia has apparently relayed my private note from my archive to favorite User:GrahamColm, who is consequently so upset. And includes User:Maralia, another favorite who is upset.
  • This was wrong - MF
  • a link from Malleus saying essential stop bothering about trivia of what Mattisse says - you can see how SandyGeorgia is apt at stirring things up for me.
  • OR insight?
    another link about my quid pro quo note to myself being spread around SandyGeorgia's group
  • OR wikilawyering
  • more spreading around by the ingroup of my quid pro qo comment that has upset everyone so - mind you this comment was not made to any of them. Only because SandyGeorgia monitors everything was it even known.
  • don't forget the plethora of emails - this is so all will be transparent
  • Talk of the plethora of email they all send to each other, to maintain their ingroup agenda without the transparency of posting.

Final comment Unless someone wants to ask me a question, I am not going to go through the rest of these petty complaints. Almost my every mistep here at Misplaced Pages has been identified and dredged up here. If you want to ask me about a specific instance, then please do so. I will look up diffs if necessary, if I can find them. But actually, I am tired of defending myself for all my mistakes, now recorded here in detail, in almost three years of work on Misplaced Pages in this RFC.

I am satisfied I was a major force in getting the Major depressive disorder to FAC. I believe the complaints are basically meant to harass me and drive me away from FAC and Misplaced Pages. I am perfectly willing to improve my behavior in ways that will be helpful to others, but not if I am constantly belittled by SandyGeorgia and my ever edit recorded in her little black book.

If other editors want to approach me and discuss my behavior, I am perfectly willing to do so. There are many FAC editors I have never had a problem with, in fact most. If people want to be reasonable with me, then I will with them. I am tired. I do not know what to say. If you want to ban me from Misplaced Pages I cannot stop you. The accusations are so twisted that I do not understand them and do not want to spend months going through them, which is what it would take.

Frankly, if I am so unwanted, then I don't want to remain here at Misplaced Pages. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Final comment and ending This has been a devastating experience, as I guess it was supposed to be. I am sorry I no longer have the heart or will to go through all the comments.

I am greatly thankful for all those contacted and others, who could have added to the score against me. It gives me great insight into those who do not carry a gunny sack on there back with all my failings. It was very unpleasant going through the diffs from 2006 when I was a newbie. I now realize that I do not understand Misplaced Pages at all and am not cut out for this kind of experience. Thank you to those of you who gave me so much pleasure. I will be around for a few more days to answer any questions.

{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 Sticky Parkin

I used to edit some articles with Mattisse several months ago and have followed what she's been up to. What I will say is that Mattisse has not been in half as much trouble in the last several months as she was previously. She used to have AN/I threads and stuff about her or involving her quite a lot, (not about the FAC process, about various other debacles) but hasn't (or at least none I've seen much, so not as many or as lengthy) for several months. Nor has she had many about the FAC issues. So her behaviour has improved somewhat. Everyone knows that the FAC process and commenting on the articles there is intimidating or frequently involves arguments, and editors such as Mattisse should not be discouraged from doing so. Otherwise it will end up being only a few editors commenting there, as she says, and articles they like getting through, rather than there being wider discussion which could lead to greater improvements to the articles, and a wider consensus. Sticky Parkin 23:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Comment on Sticky Parkin's view by Casliber

I agree that she has contributed some good points to FAC, and ultimately, her review of sources for major depressive disorder was a very good thing, I just felt the weeks of extra vitriol were unnecessary, and this is November and early December we're talking about and it is only early January now. The other point to remember is that in general assumption of responsibility over one's own role in conflict (or lack thereof) is often a good pointer to the future. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Ottava Rima

I don't know if I have the right to call this an "Outside" view because I am listed in the evidence. Please correct me if that is the case. I will reinforce again that I have respect for those who have initiated the RfC and that I do not wish for my comments to be see as disparaging them. Also, I am glad that Casliber responded to my question above; it helped me think of what to say here. I apologize if this falls under "too long, didn't read". Finally, I really don't want to be offensive, and I want to try and seek some kind of neutrality (at least, for a few people to try and be).

My view: the problems with human nature is that humans tend to group together for mutual defense and that emotions are prone to running wild. Every day on Misplaced Pages, I am afraid of such a thing happening. Lets go back to my own story for an example. My past is scattered, but to be more limiting: my first experience with User:Geogre did not go well. It was during a FAC; he was very straight forward and came off rough. I took offense, my emotions took over, and we got into many fights over a few months. I realized that it happened because my emotions dominated, I took more offense then I should have, and I ended up not respecting him. I have come to appreciate the work he has done around here, and I realized that my petty feelings should not stand in the way of an encyclopedia. What does all of this mean? Well, we are all human. We all have emotional outbursts, and we all see each other in bad lights. We have Assume Good Faith as one of our core ideas in order to try and draw us back to what is best for the encyclopedia. It is really hard to do. I have a lot of problems with it. I've struggled with it my whole time here, and still do. However, that is part of human nature.

As I stated before, I am not Mattisse's friend, nor do I ever work with her. The only times we've run into each other was either at a neutral moment or on two opposite sides of a discussion. However, I realized that I was able to overcome my inability to assume good faith by making close connections with reasonable people, to run things by them first, and to vent offline and try and drop it after I purge my emotions over a situation. I was able to make a lot of progress because people were willing to help me. They were willing to look behind behavioral problems. They were willing to try and keep me occupied on various projects. They were willing to come to my defense, but not to spoil me or bail me out without me learning from my mistakes. The important thing to do is to have someone know why they are criticized, why they are blocked, why they are removed from an area (etc), but to then say that they can still contribute, to encourage them towards the future, and to show that it is not down because someone hates them. Sure, sometimes blocks are punitive, sometimes people are malicious, and sometimes problems occur. However, the human mind wants to see it far more frequently, and sometimes even malicious occurrences should be ignored for the greater good.

We are all human here. We all have the same problems. Some are able to deal with them easier than others. However, we should recognize these flaws. We should try to help each other overcome them. We should be inclusive, welcoming, and caring. Yes, people will say mean things to you over time, but most of the time those mean comments are the result of intense emotions that just spill out and are meaningless. I am not saying that this user should or should not be blocked. I am not saying that she is right or wrong. I do not want to pass judgment upon her. However, I want to make sure that we recognize that this user has devoted a lot of her time to this encyclopedia; she is intrinsically connected to it. Any results or outcomes from this will have a powerful influence over her, and will say a great deal about us as people. So lets recognize that when we are dealing with people over civility issues that we probably have problems that we should also deal with. Once we do that, maybe we can have a little more compassion, a little more understanding, and possibly, just possibly, we can overcome our differences and try to work with each other. Regardless of the results, everyone participating here should try to be a little more welcoming to each other. We should try to prevent problems that are the result of a slow build up over time. After all, it is better to gain an ally than it is to defeat an enemy. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Yes, the purpose of this RfC is not a lynchmob or trial, but a more concrete request for a change of interaction. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. It wasn't too long for me to read, and I liked what I read. Geometry guy 00:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. +S I laughed. I cried. It became a part of me. Hugs all around. Come here, you.. <hug>. Ling.Nut 01:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. No VestedContributor gets a free pass. None. No matter how much they have contributed... Some rough edges? sure. Some speaking one's mind plainly? sure. But by and large we must remain collegial, must remain mellow. And that includes each of us... you (gentle reader), me, Ottava, Casliber, Mattisse, you name it, all of us. So if one reads Ottava's view as excusing everything, without limit, one would by rights have to oppose it. But I don't read it that way, and you, gentle reader, should not either. It is instead a call for understanding, and a call to acknowledge the good that Mattisse has done. Not an excuse for everything. Endorse, while still feeling there is a need for change. ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. Mattisse has a great deal to offer to Misplaced Pages, and I recommend her to others looking for a copyeditor because she often does very good work. However, her good work should not excuse poor behavior that violates wikipedia policies. I hope she will take the comments here as constructive criticism and find ways of dealing with her stress (as Ottava recommends) so that her on-wiki behavior stops being disruptive. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. OK. Fainites scribs 21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Tony1

I'm lucky: my dealings with Mattisse have been on a very friendly basis, and from my narrow experience, she's likeable, intelligent and lucid. But heck, Mattisse, you're upsetting a lot of good people; something must be wrong in part of the way you're approaching the interpersonal on WP. Indulge me for a moment while I talk psychology: it appears to me that you're allowing your red-hot buttons to be pushed by other users in ways they're not aware of. Some of these buttons interface with your passion for and knowledge of certain topics; others may be grounded in previous unsatisfactory experiences that you don't want to revisit in a current situation. The result is a spiralling of negative emotion in you, reinforced by other users' negative comments in a kind of feedback mechanism. Perhaps this explains how you can do such good work, then compromise it by negative, over-the-top comments towards others? The sum of it is destructive.

Now I have a vision of a Mattisse who has excised this vulnerability to her interpersonal trigger-points, and uses her strength to create positive collaborations from her passion and knowledge. How to stop the negative? It's not easy, but this might help: (1) learning to recognise where it's building to flash-point, (2) withdrawing for 12 or 24 hours and returning with a little distance from a situation, and (3) editing your more personal entries before hitting the "save" button, so that they appear too soft (they won't be for the recipients, and will have greater effect, ironically).

I think you might enjoy your interactions on WP more after a while. Tony (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. +S Sometimes we encounter WP:DICKs. And sometimes we encounter folks who really are not WP:DICKs, but for some reason, the things they say or the way they say those things make them sound kinda like they are. In both cases, the happiest response is WP:DGAF. It took me a very long time to learn this, and I still slip up once in a while. But WP:DGAF is changing my Wiki-experience into a more pleasant one. Ling.Nut 01:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. I think this is good advice that should be standard. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. (edit conflict) Yep, I'd intended to write a similar comment; but, I don't understand the RfC process, so decided against. Matisse: you demonstrate your dedication and concern about the project and its future. In some respects, many users may agree with you. I urge you to seek alternate, more relaxed, venues for your frustration. I hope that you channel these thoughts into initiating calm discussion regarding your ideas. I certainly do not want to see you leave the project; rather, I hope that you can find a way to effectuate the change you desire -- without offending other contributors. Again, I believe you possess much to contribute; and I hope that you do so. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. I think Tony's thoughts are fairly close to my own. I personally haven't had any issues with Mattisse, but it appears that there are some legitimate concerns by others. Mattisse and most of the others named on this page appear to do a lot of work in the FA, GA, and other forums where serious work is done on truly improving and polishing articles to represent the best that Misplaced Pages has to offer. Thus, those are the forums where I would expect to see the least amount of incivility, personal attacks and the like, the presence of which seemingly are often the norm for the administrator forums and pages. I would encourage Mattisse to follow Tony's advice and we can continue onward working together and building some really good articles on a variety of subjects, without any unnecessary distractions from what should be an enjoyable and fulfilling pastime for all of us. Cla68 (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. Spot on—emotional control is key here. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. –Juliancolton 04:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. I've not had significant bad experiences either (the suggestion that Jbmurray and I were part of a grand conspiricy caused me more amusement than distress!) but have seen many of the problematic interactions. I think Tony1 has captured the issues well. Geometry guy 11:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  9. Whatever good points Mattisse may have about sources, articles, and flaws in processes are getting lost in the deliberately vague accusations of wrongdoing, cabals, cliques, etc. Some of the best editors on Misplaced Pages have been alienated by Mattisse. I cannot assume who she refers to as "Sandy's minions" since she does not care to clarify. All I know is that it is not I, since I refuse to participate in hierarchical or political processes, but with such language it is not surprising that her comments are not well-received, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy that people are shutting her out. It has seemed to me that she is not happy with interacting with other editors, or some other aspects of the Misplaced Pages editing experience. Such lack of joy would cause me to find my bliss elsewhere. If she decides to stay or go, I wish her happiness, but I know the editors at FAC deserve better treatment, and problems should be addressed with less negativity and a more constructive approach. These human systems we create and use are inherently flawed; fixing them should not be this difficult. --Moni3 (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  10. I hope Mattisse can find a way to edit that she enjoys but that does not (inadvertently or on purpose) take away the enjoyment of others. I wholeheartedly echo Moni3's statement just above this. Karanacs (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Snowman

I participated in the FAC on MDD and my comments refer entirely to work there. I thought that when we had finished on the FAC were all on friendly terms, and we had all helped each other in different arenas with our styles, and we had all learnt something. At a late stage in the FAC discussion, Mattisse was the fourth highest contributor in terms of edit counts to the page, and I was the fifth highest contributor. I found that Matisse to be an very knowledgeable wikipedian, and always polite and courteous to me. I think that she made good suggestions that sometimes may not have been immediately apparent to non-experts in the areas of the page that she was interested in. It is my impression that at the start of the FAC the article had not been copy edited by several experts in the various fields relevant to the article, because it was ridden throughout by unclear text, in my opinion. The article covered a lot of ground and perhaps more than one expert was needed to cover the various topics in the article. It seems to me that Matisse and myself are knowledgeable in different disciplines relevant to the article, and, may I say that I think we worked together effectively. I think that the article is as good as it is today, partly because of Mattisse's giant contribution to the article. I can understand why the team that proposed the FAC were keen to get the article through the to FA, but I can equally understand conscientious editors wanting to get the article clear of ambiguities and misunderstandings before it got to FA. During discussion in the FAC, Mattisse sometimes came to help me and, from my point of view, protected me and made editing on the MDD FAC a friendlier place. Snowman (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The circumstances of the discussions on the MDD FAC would need to be fully considered, rather than providing a series of quotes as above, because I think the energies of the several editors involved combined in a complicated way. I would have thought that most aspects of the FAR have been discussed elsewhere, and that there was no need to discuss the MDD FAC any more. I did not collaboratate in any of the other incidents listed above outside of the MDD FAC, but I hope that people will be able to come to an amicable understanding. Snowman (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Durova

One of the surest ways to get support at conduct RFC is to declare that it's unlikely to solve anything and ask people to get back to writing articles. The people who post that rarely give specifics, though. I'll try filling that gap.

Obviously there is a conduct problem here and I hope Mattisse takes steps to correct it. Having interacted with plenty of editors who were on the short end of dispute resolution (and occasionally been there myself), the best chances for real resolution occur when the concerns raised are couched in moderate language, well substantiated, and internally consistent. It is important that these standards be maintained throughout, because overreaching any part of the presentation tends to distract: the editor on the hot seat usually focuses on the overreaches and is mightily tempted to disregard the rest. Sometimes the perception (or even the reality) is that mud is getting slung. So unless particular care is taken when drafting an RFC, the undertaking becomes self-defeating.

With respect toward the majority of Casliber's presentation, particular elements stand out. If Mattisse's faults are a failure to assume sufficient good faith and failure to adequately substantiate concerns, then one would hope that the initiator of this RFC would assume good faith of her whenever possible and substantiate all concerns about Mattisse's conduct. And yet the complaint accuses Mattisse of disrupting the featured article review process in violation of the WP:POINT policy. One of the examples asserted is the FAR of Augustan literature, although the description fails to mention that it actually resulted in delisting per Mattisse's nomination. The purported dispute at the article talk page was ordinary civil discussion about the article's lack of inline citations. Older featured articles that lack any inline citations have been getting reviewed and delisted for a while, and this one had been tagged with a request for citations several months earlier (which one of the principal contributors had removed with a declaration that he refused to provide them). In good faith, it looks entirely plausible that Mattisse decided this article was less compliant with FA standards than the other one she had already nominated for review, and withdrew the previous nomination in order to prioritize appropriately.

Now I've scarcely interacted with Mattisse firsthand at all, and I have very high opinions of the people who initiated this RFC and certified it, and some of Mattisse's statements certainly exceed the standard bounds of good faith and civility. Yet it doesn't rest easily to see a request for comment that attempts to paint a proper FAR as disruption, or that characterizes the editor under scrutiny in the language of psychology (as in Attempts to engage often lead to responses which could be seen as paranoid or manipulative). If they could be seen that way but the context affords doubt, then please select one's terms with better discretion when calling out a fellow editor before her peers. Including the best interpretations along with one's concerns is what we call good faith. If we want her to improve at it then it is imperative that we demonstrate good faith.

Due to these concerns I am unable to endorse this request for comment, which is a sad thing because a request for comment is probably necessary. I leave Mattisse to sort out the comments here (or initiate contact with me if she wishes) and now I'll return to editing. You won't see much else on my edit history tonight because I'll be in another program restoring a historic photograph of construction at Mount Rushmore. Fellow editors, if you agree with this statement please join me in specifying what encyclopedia content you'll be contributing. Best wishes all. Durova 07:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by SilkTork

After reading Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder/restart, used as a "Detailed analysis of a FAC candidacy" above, I can see there are two ways of viewing what happened:

  • a) A user, Mattisse, gets deeply involved in the review process and raises genuine concerns which assist greatly in the Major depressive disorder article making progress. During the process people don't take her concerns seriously enough, or quite understand them, and become irritated by her insistence on reasonably high standards. She is treated unkindly by others in the process , , , and the restart process, with pointed comments , would likely have been upsetting to her. I can image any user getting frustrated by what happened and then making snappy comments to others in the aftermath of that incident.
  • b) A user, Mattisse, is too insistent on checking minor details during the FAC on Major depressive disorder and wears down the other participants so that the process has to be restarted.

It is likely that both views are accurate.

However, even without assuming good faith by Mattisse, and given that b) is the most accurate view, how much disruption and damage has Mattissee done in that review, compared to the good she has done?

And when good faith by Mattisse is assumed (which isn't difficult given the amount of time and effort she spent improving the article, and that more than one other participant agreed with her assessments), is her behaviour in that FAC really deserving of a RFC? I have known some users get a BarnStar for such dedication to an article and to the project as a whole.

My feeling is that it is view a) which is the most accurate, and credit should be given to Mattisse for the work she did during that process. And more than that - some recognition should be given for the frustration she must have felt at what happened, and that this RFC is hardly likely to make her feel any the less frustrated.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. SilkTork * 19:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. I feel (a) has alot of truth to it (for the most part). The problem is that alot of this may not be fully conscious on Mattisse's part, and that I wouldn't have brought this up if I felt there was another way, but I do agree this RfC has a confrontational tone (even if by nencessity). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


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:
To clarify; there is no motion here to ban,block or sanction Mattisse. I will say (again) that her contributions are often very helpful and I am happy for her to continue to do so. However, she must refrain from making vague allegation the conduct of others without evidence. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment by others:
I support this, after having reviewed the diffs, and lurked at FAC (I've posted very sparingly there) from time to time. It seems more than fair. Accusations need diffs, for certain. SDJ 21:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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.