Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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: 02:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute

[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

Cause of concern

[edit]

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: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]) 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). [9][10][11][12][13][14]

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

[edit]
Che Guevara

Reference: Wikipedia: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;[15] [16] 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. [17] [18] 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 Wikipedia:Featured article review/Augustan literature/archive1 instead. (background from talk page.)

Disruption of the Good Article process

[edit]
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.[19] 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]

Edit warring and disruption at Coppertwig's RFA (Mattisse had a lengthy dispute with Coppertwig over Che Guevara): [20]

Unfounded and unstruck oppose at Epbr123's RFA, even after her errors were pointed out by several editors:[21][22] Mattisse rarely strikes incorrect information, retracts, or apologizes even after her info has been shown incorrect.

Disruption of the Editor review process

[edit]

Wikipedia: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

[edit]

Featured Article Candidacy for Reactive attachment disorder

Similar to what occurred at Wikipedia: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), Wikipedia: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: [23], [24]

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

[edit]

Frequent incorrect statements, left uncorrected

[edit]

Inappropriate edit summaries

[edit]

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

[edit]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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.[30][31][32][33] and being 'driven off' [34] 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
[edit]

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
[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Assume good faith
Wikipedia:Civility
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
Wikipedia:Harassment
Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Desired outcome

[edit]

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

[edit]

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC) [38] begin, ended with section blanking, final reply from Mattisse[reply]
  2. This discussion went nowhere useful ++Lar: t/c 17:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

[edit]

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)[reply]
  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 Seek his grace 21:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  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. Wikipedia is not a battleground and Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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, [39][40][41][42][43] 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 [44] 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 barleyscribs 20:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Based upon the diffs provided, something definitely has to give here. SDJ 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  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.[[45]]. 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 [[46]]. This was a clear attempt create a bias. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note I am willing to release the letter from Dinieshkannambadi regarding this incident. The main reason that after working hard on one of his articles in a sandbox in good faith, he did not move it a promised so my edits would be preserved, but did a copy/paste are refused to remedy the situation. He did not understand that may matter to me. I was just his workhorse. I have often considered contacting him with some kind and reconciling remarks. Now, of course, with this poisonous atmosphere, this will never happen and emnity will remain frozen in time, thanks to this RFC. —Mattisse (Talk) 08:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (Numbering fixed, Geogre.) What's not stated, partly because SandyGeorgia is no fan of mine, is that the reason Augustan literature was nominated, urgently, and the reason that despite just coming off FAR a little while ago Matisse wants to put up Restoration literature is that she uses FAR as a form of grudge resolution. I think she's not alone in that, but she's definitely petty and personal. As with many others involved, she employs consistent passive voice to pretend that "criteria have risen" and that articles "need" things. All of this is a personal opinion, but a simple verb mood makes it sound impressive and important. When she is contradicted, all hell breaks loose. Her exchanges are brittle, shrill, and marked by exaggerated ego. Geogre (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice statement Geogre. I have only nominated two FARs in my life. Hardly a pattern. But, its a good idea you present and it will give me something to do since I cannot work on FAC anymore. As for the "consistent passive voice" - should I say I have increased the criteria? Saying an articles "needs" things is not the passive voice. "Article" is the subject. As for you comment, " When she is contradicted, all hell breaks loose. Her exchanges are brittle, shrill, and marked by exaggerated ego." - To quote Sandy, diffs please. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm not aware of the details of all the cases listed here. But from my own experiences, I can vouch for very similar things. My interactions with her, like Dinesh's go back to the times when she used to help with copyediting WP:KARNATAKA related articles. She used to do a creditable job and I (along with other WP:KARNATAKA editors) have even handed her barnstars. Even I have not been able to fathom the inexplicable turns (for the worse) that her behaviour took since those days.
  1. And now, it has reached a point where barring some miraculously extraordinary effort on her part to restore faith, I am not inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. Her recent attempts at poisoning the well on the Kingdom of Mysore FAR (and related discussions) have been despicable, to say the least. In relation to the diff that Dinesh provides above, let me add that she was responding there to a banned troll, User:Kuntan. She of course, pleaded ignorance of that but that is not the point. The point is that she was fueling wanton personal attacks against Dinesh there. It was a disgusting sight and I removed both the personal attacks by the banned editor and her ill advised and malicious responses to them. But she continued to resist and did not let go before she could have the last word.
    Diffs: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]
  1. If that was not enough, what transpired on User:Alastair Haines' talk page this past week was even more shocking. No sooner had Alastair begun work on another of Dinesh's articles than she landed on his page with - "Thanks for your respond. Having copy edited many of Dinesh's articles, and then being attacked by his supporters for copy editing Tamil-related articles, I am only concerned that articles be fair and not biased or supporting one ethnic group/language over another. That is purely my concern. As I am sure you are aware, no one owns an article on Wikipedia. That is true of this one also, whom ever the "main" editor is. Regards,"! Every word in that message is pure fiction and its malicious intent is apparent to anybody who knows the context. As someone who counts myself as a "supporter" of Dinesh or indeed any editor who's adding value to Wikipedia, I could not help but take serious exception to her slander. Serious editors should not be expected to keep fending of such barbs every day. Beyond a point, it stops being merely irksome to the individual targets and starts hurting the community as a whole. If behaviour like this is not disruption, I'd like to know what is. Sarvagnya 15:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

(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 Wikipedia - 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 *YES! 10:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q. How did User:Lar get involved in this? I have never had any previous contact with him, never been involved in an article with him, so why would he contact me over SandyGeorgia out of the blue? So many really awful things are happening on Wikipedia, and I am that awful that this important person (I now know from his user page) plunks himself, with no explanation, into my life? It makes no sense. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A.This question, or a very close variant of it, was asked on my talk page, and answered there at some length. Here's a permalink to the conversation as it exists now: [54]... A recap, though, is that a lot of people talk to me about a lot of things, and I observe a lot of things as well. I've been aware of Mattisse for some time, but a growing number of concerns (some with requests for anonymity) were brought to me recently. My first direct recent interaction was on Mattisse's talk page. I've given that diff, above, characterising it as unsatisfactory. That only increased my concern (the way that particular discussion went, with Mattisse casting aspersions on all sorts of folk, was really a red flag for me) and so I continued to investigate further. And now, here we are. I'll reiterate what everyone else is saying... Mattisse, you need to focus on you, and your behaviour, and where it can be strengthened, instead of on everyone else. This RfC is about your conduct. You are a terrifically valuable, dedicated, bright, energetic contributor with much to offer this project (and much good work to be proud of already). But you have to find a way to be more mellow. That's really all that is being asked of you. ++Lar: t/c 01:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q. I am willing to release numerous letter both from SandyGeorgia and from Dinesh to prove my points. Is that allowed? SandyGeorgia is far more candid and explicit in letters and I would like to be able to quote from them. Dinesh's letter will also explain how angry and vindictive he was in letters, once he knew I would never copy edit for him again. I am sorry he has esculated his position by commenting here, as many times I have considered contacting him with a conciliatory message. His comments here make that impossible now forever. This RFC is poisonous and will poison Wikipedia in the future. I can never continue here after this. However, I would like all to be revealed before I leave. —Mattisse (Talk) 07:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. It is polite to seek the agreement of the other party to an email before releasing it. And even with their agreement you probably should edit it to remove personally identifying information such as email addresses, real names, addressses and the like before revealing it. Hope that advice is helpful. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My e-mail address is private and I like to keep it that way: I do not authorize release of e-mail and I never release the e-mail of others. In this case, if Mattisse authorizes it, I will forward to Lar the exchange Mattisse has referred to (inaccurately, several times), noting that a wiser course of action might be for Mattisse to first review the statements she has made here and correct them for accuracy. Alternately, it is possible that Mattisse no longer has those e-mails, which may explain her misunderstanding or misrepresentation of them, so I could also send them back to her if that would help clear up her confusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

{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

[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati was caught, I was not to my knowledge reported on AN/I.
  2. SandyGeorgia voted against User:FayssalF in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/FayssalF, based in his response to me (above) [56]
  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)[reply]
  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 Wikipedia 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:"[57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63])
  • 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.
  • [64] 10-23-08 regarding Geometry Guy with whom I have a good working relationship. He didn't seem upset.
  • [65] - 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.
  • [66] - 8-22-06 this again was about asking for references to article which I subsequently received a barnstar from Maury
  • [67] - 8-22-06 Just more with Maury
  • [68] - 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.
  • [69] 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.
  • [70]) - 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  (Talk)  on 03:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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.(Struck out by request. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)) 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.[reply]

Not responsible for Che Guevara

  • 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 Wikipedia.
  • 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:SilkTork and no that he gave me a barnstar for MDD after reading through the whole FAC.

Arbitrary break

[edit]
  • 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. eg. Ceoil and Gimmetrow.
  7. Stop following me around as you are still doing, noticing your comments under Support' below.
  8. Stop making unfounded accusations as you did when you tried to sabotage an RFA with unfounded 3-RR colusion.
  9. Stop giving meaningless links that purport to show something purposeful. Is it really necessary to give links to typos.
  10. Give me some credit for the MDD article; stop disparaging me because I made it decent while Calisber was busy writing other articles and DYKs.
  11. STOP FOLLOWING ME AROUND - it gives the appearance of a lynch mob mentality that you seem determined to use everything against me at all costs. You have made it clear that you want this place to be rid of me. STOP FOLLOWING ME AROUND. yOU KNOW THAT THIS IS A HORRENDOUS EXPERIENCE FOR ME BUT YOU SEEM DETERMINED TO BRING ME TO MY KNEES. WHY IS THAT SO IMPORTANT TO YOU?
  • Major Depressive Disorder

The ALL CAPs issue is a false one.[77] 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?)

  • [78] I am not sure what this is supposed to prove. As someone pointed out on AN/I [79] 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 - [80] - 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.
  • [83] - 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.
  • [84] - 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.
That's a miscasting of the AN/I discussion. The only people who thought it unwarranted were under the misapprehension that I was "involved". See Gwen Gale's comment. And you're miscasting it again here, as it was not a block, but a threat of a block if you repeated gross incivility. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [85] - 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.
  • [86], [87], [88]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.
  • [89] - 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)"[reply]
  • [90] - 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

[91], [92], [93]RFA - Wehwalt

  • These three are the attempts to sabotage the RFA for Wehwalt
  • [94] a quid pro quo for SG
  • a repeat of the link to the quid pro quo
  • [95] dear Maralia throws bestirs the fires.
  • apparently another link to the quid pro quo (I'm not very good at links)
  • 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.
  • [97] 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.
  • [98] OR insight?
    another link about my quid pro quo note to myself being spread around SandyGeorgia's group
  • [99] 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 or to anyone else. It was a note in my archives to myself. Only because SandyGeorgia monitors everything was it even known.
  • [100] 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.
  • Response to ingroup of SandyGeorgia's favorites
  • Response - it is not hard to figure out by reading SandyGeorgia's userpage as well as her comments to others and her comments on FAC. Moni3, GrahmColin, Casliber, Marala (or whatever his name is), Coeil, those she openly solicits votes for on RFAs (even though often, once they are voted in they stop helping with FAC), a couple of other names I can't remember right now. Just follower her page and her comments on FAC. I have never once received any praise or anything but condemnation or negative remarks. Is hat because I am of harm to FAC or is that because I am not a follower, an in grouper, the status I forfeited by having my own opinion on an FAC she wanted me to review. (I can release the email.)
  • Response to nsinuations 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.

  • on a 'small group of people controlling FAC'
  • Response - This is not hard to figure out. Read the warm fuzzy praise on Sandy's talk page for the selected few. (I am forbidden to post there - not that Sandy has ever said anything nice about me.) Read the boundtiful praise on FAC's for her favorites such as ColinGraham, even after he has just screwed up something. Read the criticism of me, that inevitably comes after any entry I make. Often the editor of the article thanks me, but not Sandy (although grudgingly she may have to pass the article. Read "where is Ecccola (or whatever his name is) or the funneral language wen a favorite leaves, as in how will we ever carry on? (Forget that she is actively driving new editors away, like me, because my opinion may differ from hers.) Look at Moni3, always compliant and subserviant, same with GrahamColin, who harassed me on my user page for not falling in line with passing a certain FAC). I can name others. Only Ottava Rima has remained his/her own person misteriously. Calisber, of course, is king, and now that he has been sheparded into arbcom, how wonderful for FAC! (Seemingly)
  • and again
  • Same answer. If you are Moni3 you can get a badly written, POV article through because it is Moni3's.
  • I am giving an opinion. That is allowed, isn't it? Or it is not? If not, I will expect in the future all of your statements, SandyGeogia, to have a reference (which you dictates rarely do - unless it is to some nonexistant statement in (supposedly) MoS. Besides, that statement I made is a correct analysis and I stand by it.

/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates&diff=prev&oldid=251015112] [101] and [102]

  • Response - Actually, I can't tell where all these links refere to, as this page is already too large and confusing and I can barely find my place. But if they refer to Sandy's ingroup, then again, I refer you to her talk page and all the personal comments there, the effusive praise given indescrimimately to the favorites, and to the FAC pages themselves and the effusive praise there for people who do rudimentary tasks. In fact, there is a very small group that more or less Sandy can woo into compliance. Others are driven away by her style, like me. There is enough praise for my abilities (despite Sandy and Calisber) that I could be an asset to FAC but because I have my own opinions and will not bow down to the [Big Wig] (what else to call her) I am an outcast.
  • I can't figure out these but they seem more of the same. Not having the "correct" opinion per Sandy. Daring to vote as one thinks rather than her party line.

"*Same thing. Samdy sets out how to vote, and the groupies comply.

  • Oh dear. One must not have opinions about FAC that do not comply with Sandy's dictums. A sacred cow cannot be criticized. Do not dare to have an original opinion. Toe the party line. Thank God most other areas of Wikipedia are not so ridigly controlled by one person.
  • Response to Detailed analysis of a FAC candidacy
    Calisber did make a personal attack on my on the MDD FAC, far more cutting than comments I have been condemned for here. No one commented on it, and Sandy quietly move it off the FAC page and on to talk. That comment definitely changed the tone for me on that FAC, already an up hill battle for me to get my comments or questions taken seriously. Please see text of one of the personal attacks above under Personal attacks, grudge bearing, failure to AGF, and warnings.

Break 2

[edit]

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

This comment was made out of extreme frustration after SandyGeorgia repeatedly removed my comment in the discussion thread to a place where it was not in the discussion thread. When I moved my comment back to its rightful place, it immediately received a response from another participant. Sandy, p following me around and interjecting herself unnecessarily.
  • Exrtrameous comment - I was accused of blanking a page somewhere, when in reality I put it in my archive.

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Lars edits and allegations

[edit]

---Response to Lars and secret discussions about me--- (copied from Lars talk page;

Lars
I have been aware of you, Mattisse, for some time, and concerned about what I saw. I've seen you at various discussion boards, such as FA, GA, DYK, etc, and elsewhere. Bur further, people speak to me about things a great deal, I have a lot of contact with other Wikipedians. You are one of the topics that do come up from time to time
My response
I am quite aware that there secret discussions about me as I see the outcome of those discussions, even though I am never notified of the discussions, nor is my view or opinion ever solicited. I have no idea how or where these discussion take place.
Lars
When your recent edits were brought to my attention, I decided to speak to you about it, despite having had no direct recent contact, because I was quite concerned. And I made that concern clear on your talk. You dismissed the concern and cast aspersions on my motives for raising them. That's just not a productive approach, Mattisse. You need to take on board that you have areas of potential improvement. If you cannot take input from others you may not be successful here. That's something I usually find myself telling a newbie, not someone with your long experience.
My response
I regret that I was dismissive and cast aspersions on your motives. The problem was that I did not know you, have never as far as I know had any interactions with you, so your message did not make any sense to me.
Post on my page from Lars

-- This is not good --

Mattisse... edits like this one just are not good. Not what we expect from seasoned contributors. Way too blatantly assuming bad faith and needling a fellow contributor. I've not followed your contributions closely but I'm not liking what I've seen... as I commented at Che, your approach may not be suitable. At all. I think you need to revisit it. ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response

I did know that SandyGeorgia Opposed articles. All I said was "Sandy, you opposed it? That is good to know. Where did I get the idea you were neutral? Guess that was a wrong idea of mine." I was informed that she did so only in the past. Forgive me, but that was not clear to me from the context. To have Lars, someone I do not know, point out that a confusing comment was deeply disturbing to him made no sense to me. None. Nor did it make sense that he would post something like that on my talk page. He seemed to be assuming some level of bad faith on my part that I cannot even fathom.

Lars
As to the RfC, the RfC edit history clearly shows that I have a substantial number of edits on that page. I stand behind them, they are examples of areas where you could have comported yourself better. We are none of us perfect in this world, and I certainly have areas of improvement, but I'm open to constructive criticism. Are you? Further, I don't hold to the view that there is a vast conspiracy against me just because people point out places where I erred. I hope that helps clarify matters.
Really, Mattisse... no one wants you driven away. We want you to continue to do the many good things you do, but edits like this one where it appears you are ... I do not know what exactly. Mocking? Hounding? Being snippy to? ... Sandy... they just are not helpful. And that's an example from AFTER when this RfC started. Please, Mattisse. Take the feedback you're getting on board. Try harder to be more mellow and less quick to raise ire. If you can't get it from the RfC itself, take it from, for example, Risker... you just had an exchange with her where she pointed out that you can't continue this way. Please return to assuming good faith. ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1-9-09 Casliber on Lar page had Lar check RFC before "going live" [106]
My response

Below I list all of your edits to the RFC before it went "live" and have responded to each one. I urge you to strike the ones that are false, misleading and do not assume good faith.

As for as the link you give to a comment of mine that you do not like this one, I do not understand your objection as above on this RFC there is a list of my typos and copy editing glitches, so what is wrong with me pointing them out? I don't get it. Are you saying that as you look around Wikipedia, this sort of petty behavior on my part is worthy of an RFC? ---Lars contributions to the compiling of the RFC--- Your contributions to the compiling of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3

1. (immaterial edit)[107] - For reference: Mattisse (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)
2. (misinformed edit - I refute what I think you mean below) [108] - *and this one on Maralia's talk page, where Mattisse turns up to claim some rather outlandish things, quickly debunked by Maralia and Malleus Fatuorum.
  • Note: This refers to a quid pro quo [109] and because I do not engage in the email planning that goes on.[110] I think I have a right to wonder about such things, especially as so much goes on behind my back as you have confirmed in your post to me above on your talk page.
  • Note: This also refers to SandyGeorgia's trying to set me up for a 3-RR block and disruptively voting against an editor, User:Wehwalt in a Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wehwalt: [111],[112],[113],[114]
3. (incorrect facts) [115] - apparently (Added this to previous edit of "After User:SandyGeorgia happened across an article under GA review ... After User:SandyGeorgia apparently happened across an article under GA review )
  • Note - If this refers to the Brenda Song GAR, then SandyGeorgia did not "happen across" it. I was asked and gave a second opinion on the article Talk:Brenda Song/GA1 which contained a list of needed changes. The reviewer unfortunately immediately failed the article instead of giving the article editor, User:Gimmetrow, time to make changes. User:Gimmetrow was angry engaged in a revert war over the article history and was blocked for 8 hours. SandyGeorge tried to get the block over turned. Instead of just relisting the article, a GAR was initiated. SandyGeorgia jumped in and declared the article as having passed. This is what she is blaming me for. Gimmetrow made it plain that she did not blame me. See User_talk:Mattisse/Archive_16#Brenda_Song_GAR.
4. (AGF and please retract) [116] - added the bolded wording to this edit. Mattisse submitted Robert A. Heinlein to FAR on November 11. [117] [118] 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 Wikipedia:'''Featured_article_review/Augustan_literature/archive1''' instead. (background from talk page)
The facts are being misinterpreted here.
  • Note: Are you reading my mind here? Or do you know for sure that was the reason I changed nominated?
5. (immaterial edit) [121] - http
6. [122] Change this post of Casliber's: What I would like to see is for Mattisse to either provide evidence for or drop allegations of an FAC cabal, and for her to desist from comments about my conduct which I feel are untrue, such as fear of my supposed bullying tactics. However I thought her last message to me was so bizarre, I question her ability to see this objectively. I hope I am wrong. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC) to the following: 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 cabal [reply]
  • Note - is it worthy of an RFC to be bizarre? Why don't you just me for being crazy.
7. [123] -

:::::::::::Experienced editors? Have you ever gotten an article to a GA? Well we have, don't know about you. Right now i'm working on Santa Inoue's article, which i'm planning for to be at that rank. How many articles have you gotten to GA Sesshomaru? (not Sessh, by the way) – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 00:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple. Beelzebub (Sand Land) was my first (then it got redirected). I helped Himura Kenshin, Sagara Sanosuke, and others meet that standard. Tried doing the same for Naruto Uzumaki and Pegasus Seiya up until recently, still gettin' there ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
As noted he reverted my strikeout:history of Sagara Sanosuke and posted to my page complaining about the strikeout. I immediately apologize.[124]
I ask him via edit summary to Sesshormaru - please reevaluate your claim regarding Sagara Sanosuke, as it is greatly exaggerated) [125]
and here I describe my article involvement[126][127]
Note When Lars says "AGAIN modifying the words of another." the diff he give is to the same one given before [128] Therefore one incident is falsely made to look like two.
Note - the other editor involved in this incident holds nothing against me.[129] He even wants me to copy edit an article for him.[130] You are the only one who thinks what I did was worthy of censure.
  • 8. [131] in which he posts on my talk page out of the blue: # This discussion went nowhere useful ++Lar: t/c 17:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC) His link go to a question born from my ignorance that before my time on Wikipedia, I did not know that SandyGeorgia Opposed articles.[132] Lar does not mention all the evidence he is collecting about my strike out of an article name from another's comment, my instant apology, or his disapproval of my trying to take credit for work I did on an article which would have been more relevant and comprehensible to me.[reply]

These are the accusations you contributed. At least two of them are false, or misleading. Are you willing to assume good faith and withdraw these accusation?

  • 2 - the allegations of outlandish things - if you assume good faith, they are not "outlandish"
  • 3 - factually inaccurate - please assume good faith and retract
  • 4 - the allegation on the Augustan literature article - inaccurate so please assume good faith and retract
  • 7 - the strike out allegations - inaccurate - please assume good faith and retract

I sincerely hope you and others will assume good faith and strike out the false, misleading accusations above. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to accusations of racism and India

[edit]
  • I deny the charges by SandyGeorgia (Talk) that I am racist or that I was racist in my interactions with other editors, specifically I deny that I was racist in my editing of India articles. I was responsible for copy editing several FAC articles on India, as well as countless other articles without such charges being made. (See Barnstarts I received below that suggest I had good working relationships with India editors.)
  • Also, please see below Outside view by Fowler&Fowler


A Barnstar for you

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I BostonMA talk award you, Mattisse, this Barnstar on 18 October 2006 for your tireless efforts and great contributions to India related articles. Thank-you.

For you! --BostonMA talk 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Epic Barnstar
For a fantastic collaborative effort in Hoysala Empire I award you this epic barnstar BostonMA talk 14:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Your contributions--

Thank you for your intelligent copy edits on Hoysala Empire article and for the numerous pages you have worked on relating to Indian topics.

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your tireless contributions to Hoysala Empire article and for your excellent contributions to many more topics on India.Dineshkannambadi 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Dineshkannambadi 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC) -- For your efforts --[reply]

The Resilient Barnstar The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your character and openmindedness.Dineshkannambadi 03:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Dineshkannambadi 03:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Barnstar--

Barnstar.png I award Mattisse barnstar in appreciation of contributions to article related to India --Pinecar 00:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- A barnstar for you :) --

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Great work on Dinesh's articles. You deserve this one. :) Sarvagnya 10:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- THANK YOU --

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Hello Mattisse,
I am glad to award this to you for your excellent and tireless contributions on articles related to History of Karnataka and continued and tireless support to Dinesh in writing FA after FA. Thank you for your contributions and look forward many more from you. KNM Talk 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]




I earnestly urge SandyGeorgia (Talk) to please assume good faith.

—Mattisse (Talk) 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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 Wikipedia 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. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

[edit]

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

[edit]

Questions

[edit]

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

Q.

A.

Outside view

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

In response to Mattisse- Blueboar never had any pre-exist profound connection with User:Cyborg Ninja as far as I know, he was just an uninvolved editor who met a request for mediation or something. Another conspiracy theory.:) Sticky Parkin 04:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Sticky

Cyborg Ninja interjected herself in the dispute with User:Blueboar over the Caison article, implying bad things about me. Since User:Blueboar regularly deletes his page I have not looked for his responses.

  • [133] LessHeard vanU warns Cyborg Ninja to leave Mattisse alone.
  • [134]Ninja Cyborg repeats her accusations against me to another editor.
  • [138] She posts to Blueboar.

Cyborg Ninja posts on AN/I in defense of Blueboar

  • [139]
  • [140], [141]
  • Cyborg Ninja's request for mediation for the Caisson article is turned down.[142]
  • Sample of Cyborg Ninja's posts to Blueboar

[143]

[144]

  • More posts to AN/I about Mattisse and the Caisson article[145]
  • Cyborg Ninja blocked by LessHeard vanU [146]
  • Cyborg Ninja posts to AN/I that LessHeard vanU blocked Mattisse [147]
  • Cybory Ninja post to An/I a review of my talk page and defends Blueboar and says that Mattisse is blocked as a consequence.
  • More posts to AN/I about Mattisse and defending Blueboar[148]
  • More AN/I post about Mattisse and defending Blueboar[149][150]

[161] and PalaceGuard thanks her for the "heads up".[162] —Mattisse (Talk) 19:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Users who endorse this summary:

Comment on Sticky Parkin's view by Casliber

[edit]

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)[reply]

Comment on Sticky Parkin's view by Mattisse

[edit]

Do you really think that Blueboar was right in allowing my article Zaojing to be copy/pasted into to Caisson (Asian architecture) without allowing for discussion first? Was he right in allowing my references to be copied inaccurately into Caisson (Asian architecture)? Was he right in trying to force me to rewrite Caisson (Asian architecture) while asking nothing from PalaceGuard? I saved my article and resurrected it under a new name many months later. I entered a REDIRECT. Neither Blueboar nor Palaceguard followed up on the Caisson (Asian architecture), whereas I recreated my article and renamed it: Ancient Chinese wooden architecture. You see Caisson (Asian architecture) as a better article than Ancient Chinese wooden architecture? Did that article deserve to be gutted without discussion into Caisson (Asian architecture)? Was Blueboar right in defending this action of PalaceGuards? You see this as a fair outcome? (You can read more, above, where I responded to this accusation, if you are interested. Blueboar's connect to User:Cyborg Ninja for example who was subsequently blocked.)

?—Mattisse (Talk) 01:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Ottava Rima

[edit]

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

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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. It wasn't too long for me to read, and I liked what I read. Geometry guy 00:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. +S I laughed. I cried. It became a part of me. Hugs all around. Come here, you.. <hug>. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 01:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  6. Mattisse has a great deal to offer to Wikipedia, 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)[reply]
  7. OK. Fainites barleyscribs 21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I agree, but I'm really unsure in this case. As Matisse says, she's been here since 2006, so it's hard to assume that she's new and yet to have the edges worn down. More to the point, employing and disrupting and dominating FAR is quite different from merely having editing conflicts. I do not agree with the very existence of FAR, myself, as I have not found a good argument for removing FA's at all, but, inasmuch as it exists, it has the potential to be extremely harmful to our better editors and extremely enabling to our most disruptive. It was always a loaded gun on the table, waiting for someone to be rash. In the case of Matisse, it's an amplifier to every bad impulse, and it elevates interpersonal difficulties to the point of damage. Still, improvement would be best, of course. Geogre (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I like Ottava's human touch. The difficulty is the dual character of Wikipedia as (1) a collaborative online encyclopedia-building project that grew out of the GNU/Linux ideology where bright, sober people come together and (2) the world's fastest-growing religion, a 21st-century beacon of solace that beckons to the world's geeks, dorks, grinds, nerds and dweebs:

    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

    I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

    No analysis can merge these dueling aspects into a single, unified picture, but Ottava's try comes close.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Wow. I wasn't going to comment when reading through this RfC...but this moved me a lot. What a beautiful view. Someone should quote parts of this and add them to WP:AGF or some other policy... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Tony1

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  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 (talk—WP:3IAR) 01:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think this is good advice that should be standard. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  6. Spot on—emotional control is key here. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  11. MBisanz talk 20:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Thank you TONY. I have always felt I have had a good working relationship with you and am glad you feel the same. You do not seem to get involved in personal vendettas. I will strive to follow your example. Thank you again for weighing in here in this RFC. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Snowman

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Thank you Snowman. Your efforts at Wikipedia:Editor review/Cosmic Latte are greatly appreciated, as perhaps you were able to show him how destructive his edit summaries werr and how much they lowered the tone of the MDD. I so much appreciate your understanding of such dismissive methods of putting another editor down. And I think you did it is such an kind way that perhaps Cosmic Latte understood. Thank you again. You are a treasure to Wikipedia. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Durova

[edit]

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

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 him 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 he 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 his peers. Including the best interpretations along with one's concerns is what we call good faith. If we want him 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 he 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. DurovaCharge! 07:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Thank you Durova I am willing to initiate contact with you. Perhaps you can clear up my misunderstandings. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by SilkTork

[edit]

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

After reading Wikipedia: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 [163], [164], [165], and the restart process, with pointed comments [166], 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 *YES! 19:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. SilkTork, I thank you for this, and my deepest apologies also. When we were dealing with each other I was still being stalked by Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati as I had been for seven months, some of whom had applied, and were accepted by AMA for help against me. It was not a rational time for me. Our mediator had changed his name three times and then disappeared forever, just before the whole thing went to Arbitration. In hindsight, I was not appreciative of your efforts, or kind to you. I regret that my state of mind at the time made it very difficult to trust. (I still see some of those sock puppets quotes, as most never knew, and don't know now that they were sock puppets, since they had been operating for years as legitimate editors.) Please forgive me and I thank you for the Barnstar for my work on Major depressive disorder. That means so much to me. You and Snowman realize. I am so sorry for the past. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by OrangeMarlin

[edit]

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

I've observed Mattisse on a few FAC's, and I really didn't form an opinion one way or another. Usually, long-winded editors bore the crap out of me, so, I rarely read what they say. I'm not a big fan of RFC's, since they're just a giant bitch session, but Casliber has made some strong points. And I trust Cas. But all of that's irrelevant. This morning, Mattisse did this to an innocent conversation about an ongoing FAC on my user talk. Those of you who know me understand that I don't take kindly to this, and probably would have termed it "vandalism" in a stern warning to her page. But then I realized that this one edit on my user talk was really kind of mean. Deleting my, wholly irrelevant and silly, comment to User:SandyGeorgia, while adding in a wholly irrelevant but pointed comment. My only interaction with Mattisse was here where she was in an edit conflict with me while I tried to clean up citations for an FAC. Her response was on my talk page was rather odd and almost passive aggressive. So my view of this situation is that Mattisse has to get over her obsession with SG, quit playing martyrs, and maybe be topic blocked (or is it banned) from FAC's, since they cause her so much grief. And she really ought to retract her latest edit to my page (although I've done it already). Otherwise, there's really not much to see here.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 10:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC) - after reivewing this I think OM is closer to the real disruption.[reply]
  2. I don't really understand the above complaint except that I made an accident deletion on OM's talk page, that I accidentally edited a page he was working on and that I bore the crap out of him. I am scared of OR and would never edit a page I knew he was working on. Rosetta@home was a page I brought to GA status so I hope he will forgive me for editing it again. That I bore the crap out of him is not surprising as I know he has a low opinion of me. That I accidentally deleted something on his page is unforgivable. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Re: " ... Mattisse has to get over her obsession with SG, quit playing martyrs, and maybe be topic blocked (or is it banned) from FAC's ... ": I only partially understand Orangemarlin's view, because a factor has been overlooked. The RFC raised issues with all of Mattisse's behaviors, towards many editors and on many different pages and processes, not just what Orangemarlin describes as "her obsession with SG". Mattisse's responses to this RFC all seemed to focus on that aspect, but this focus overlooks the issues at Editor review, DYK, FAR, and the other issues raised on the RFC, addressing a general tone and approach to editing (including personal attacks and failure to assume good faith) that can be improved. So, I endorse this view only partially. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Thank you, OrangeMarlin and I hope everyone will assume good faith, including SandyGeorgia. I am not the devil. I am a human being who has been trying to negotiate the difficult waters of Wikipedia. Let us all be tolerant of each other. Scapegoating anyone is not the solution. I include myself in this. It was all too easy to see SandyGeorgia as the problem because of her treatment of me. But that is the wrong way of seeing things. How she treats me is something I have to get over and drop. Lets all move on. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Coppertwig

[edit]

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

Part 1

[edit]

The mention of Che Guevara being defeatured in the Statement of Dispute could be interpreted as blaming Mattisse. I had been editing the Che Guevara article for a few weeks when it was defeatured. I didn't get the impression that Mattisse caused it to be defeatured or (as far as I remember) disrupted the process. It was my impression that the defeaturing was based on detailed lists of concerns by some other editors acting as FA reviewers, concerned mainly with NPOV and formatting. Although we did a lot of work, not all the problems listed were fixed.

The Statement of Dispute says "Mattisse had a lengthy dispute with Coppertwig over Che Guevara". As far as I remember and as far as I'm aware, there have not been any content disputes between Mattisse and myself at the Che Guevara article.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC) - as uninvolved, but agreeing that Coppertwig can say that it is no dispute.[reply]
  3. Thank you ☺Coppertwig. I so much appreciate your objectivity. I have seen, over time, that you are very fair and I trust you. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2

[edit]

This RfC contains many old diffs, and is not formatted in such a way as to make it easy to find any more recent diffs that may be present. For this and other reasons I'm not commenting on most of the issues raised here. I'm just clarifying a few specific points.

I hate to add to the burden, Mattisse, of all the things in this RfC which taken together may be rather overwhelming for you. But, I feel a need to clear up a couple of things.

You said in "Reply to Sticky Parkin" in the Response section of this RfC, "User:Coppertwig has denied any notable problems with me or my behavior in his outside view posted in this RFC." Actually, that's not what I meant. When I said "content disputes", I was only referring to disputes about article content.

You also said in the Response section of this RfC, re Che Guevara, "I would remind you that User:Coppertwig and User:Redthoreau controlled the content of that article for quite a while." I disagree, and with or without the proposed remedy "Stop unsupported allegations", I would appreciate it if you would either strike out that statement, or substantiate it.

I really appreciate the positive energy I've seen in your comments of the past few days, and I hope things go well for you.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by SandyGeorgia

[edit]

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

Noting for the record that Mattisse has continued to fail to assume good faith and to make unsupported and inaccurate statements, here and elsewhere, since this RFC started. Some examples (not an exhaustive list) are:

  • Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3#Arbitrary break Entire section under "Disruption of the Featured Article Candidacy process", "... suggests to Jennavecia that she block me based on material in my archives ...", "... SandyGeorgia tried to sabotage the RFA for Wehwalt ...", " ... Sandy Dearest's attempt to sabatogue an RFA ...", "SandyGeorgia has apparently relayed my private note from my archive to favorite User:GrahamColm, who is consequently so upset." and "Talk of the plethora of email they all send to each other, to maintain their ingroup agenda without the transparency of posting." (this after she knows I have never ever had a single e-mail exchange with GrahamColm [167]), "... GrahamColin, who harassed me on my user page for not falling in line with passing a certain FAC ..." and many more.
  • Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3#Break 2 "However, Sandy with her usual effusiveness for her favorites, encouraged him in his involvement in an unconsidered GAR."
  • Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3#Proposed solutions "Unfortunately, her obsession with following me around has not abated." "I was only involved in the latter part, because SandyGeorgia jumped into my page to trash Zeraeph." "Outside of FAC, just SandyGeorgia is my enemy."
  • Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3#A small courtesy " ... I assure you I did not approach her out of the blue. I am fairly sure that she contacted me first, as I had never heard of her and certainly had no knowledge of her history with SlimVirgin and Zeraeph. She certainly posted on my page, an exhaustive expose of Zeraeph, much to my surprise." " Having vanquished SlimVirgin, I believe I am next on the list."
  • [168] "people are seeking to drive me away from FAC" [169] "The intent is to drive me off and they will succeed."
  • [170] "Sandy's many disparaging remarks about GAN". " Nonetheless, User:Dweller said I should be blocked without warning (AN/I thought differently and that a block was totally unwarranted.)" "SandyGeorgia has blamed me for the Zeraph/Slim Virgin incident." "Recently, SanyGeorgia tried to get another admin to punish me ... " "It will be supported by the little group who depend on Sandy for their FACs."
  • [171] Refers to Mike Christie as "Mikey".
  • [172] "Typo log" on a recently passed FA.
  • [173] "There is no reason for her to focus on me, yet she has because I did not do her bidding once."
  • [174] "You are a regular poster on Sandys talk page, my measure that you are a danger to me." [175] "Part of the posse, are you. ... The secret forces." [176] "Obviously a FAC fav that you get praised to the hilts for that little edit."
  • [177] Continued allegations of a "quid pro quo".

I hope these sorts of insinuations, unsupported accusations and failure to AGF (detrimental to a collegial editing environment) will cease once this RFC closes. There has been no call for Mattisse to be banned or sanctioned: only for a change in these behaviors.[178]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. As I've said in my previous commentary, I came to this RfC uninvolved. Having reviewed the facts at hand, I'm convinced that the above view by Sandy is factual and represents a serious problem. SDJ 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Something has to change. The present situation is no good for anybody. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I support this. I will start a diff collection before I make any future statements. I will not make any more frivolous statements about Sandy. I will list names, instead of a global term like FAC favorites. I do not understand some of the diffs above though. Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I would like Mattisse to tone down the attacks. Everyone knows her feelings about the situation. Sometimes it is best not to constantly go after ones you feel in opposition to, especially in terms of a conflict of interest. But yes, to give some advice to Mattisse: if you really want to make sure that someone is prevented from doing something bad, you must wait until you are most effective and the time is right. I do not condone such things as biding your time and waiting to pounce, but at least, if you do not wish to change your attitude to someone, please withhold it more often because you water down your own complaints. No, I am not suggesting A Poison Tree mentality. Instead, I am referring to a "cry wolf" type of situation. I think that if you limited your critiques of Sandy to only those that are utmost detrimental, instead of just any problem, then it would alleviate both issues concerning yourself and Sandy. Thus, you can keep your complaints and both parties will be more willing to address them. I doubt this will make much sense reading through it the first time. However, I do believe that the sheer volumes of complaints should be limited in order to satisfy your own wants and desires, Mattisse. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Fowler&fowler

[edit]

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

My dealings with Matisse have been uniformly pleasant. I can't speak to all the issues mentioned above, but I can say something about her dealings with user:Dineshkannambadi. First, let me say unequivocally, to whosoever wrote the statement above, that what is given as an example of user:Mattisse's racist comment is not even remotely racist. There is no "racial" (whatever that means) difference between residents of southern India who speak Tamil and those who speak Kannada; the differences are ethnic, as indeed there are among Kannada speakers themselves. All Mattise is doing there is pointing to a long simmering dispute on Wikipdia that, in my limited observation, is mostly the creation of the latter group. It is like a chihuahua (Kannada speakers) nipping at the heels of an elephant (Tamil speakers), a "dispute" that looms large only in one pair of eyes. I've seen evidence of this cultural inferiority-complex on other Wikipedia pages, such as India, where Kannada-speaking editors have relentlessly nickel-and-dimed issues of no consequence all because it makes their region (long-neglected and diminished in their view) come out looking a little better. In addition, I have found this "Kannada nationalism" on Wikipedia to be infused with Hindu nationalism, as is evidenced, for example, in this post by user:Dineshkannambadi on the Talk:India page:

"I dont Phoo (sic) Phoo (sic) your clever 'number of hits on google' arguement (sic). I am just amused, seeing a clear religious inclination emerging in your debates, of which I advice (sic) you against. The languages these writers, Iqbal and Galib (sic) wrote in is (sic) hardly considered native to Indian soil, though I am sure their writings are highly cherished. The influence of Urdu/Persian on Indian history is at best minimal to Indian culture (16 (sic) century onwards) and this does not compare competitivly (sic) to a great language like Kannada language which is not only native to India, but has evolved on Indian soil for over 2000 years, has influenced Tamil, a classical language of India, has been an administrative language for almost 1600 years and has a proven "extant" literature from the 9th century, with numerous references to Kannada writers from as early as 5th-6th century. Why should Galib (sic) and Iqbal get the same stage as the seven gems of modern Kannada." (Italics and "sic"s mine.)

To which I replied:

"What soil is Urdu native to? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iran? Arabia? It was created smack in the middle of India, in an around Delhi and UP. Muslims (according to 2001 Census of India) comprise 13.4% of India's population and a large majority are speakers of Urdu. Many more than there are Kannada speakers."

As for user:Dineshkannambadi's Wikipedia articles, the limited evidence that I have examined in three—Kingdom of Mysore (currently in FAR), Kannada literature and Western Chalukya architecture—is one of an editor with poor writing skills. My impression is that in the past, user:Dineshkannambadi has leaned on user:Mattisse in order to turn his (Wikipedia) sow's ears into silk purses, but has given her little credit for her extensive work that, in most cases, has gone far beyond routine copy editing. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Giano

[edit]

This is one of the very rare occasions that I am commenting at an RFC. I generally avoid them like the plague. I am a huge believer in leaving those writing the project alone to do so,and ignoring their odd peculiarities. However, as Mattisse does not fall into that category, I am, after much goading from Mattisse finally here. I shall not comment on the grossly unfair attack on user:Dineshkannambadi immediatly above, one of Wikipedia's most entheusiastic editors in the architectural field, lttle known to those ouside it - that can come later. I want to concentrate on Mattisse; she damges main-space pages so I will remain silent about her, no longer. Where possible I avoid her, occasionally she makes this impossible, even to the extent of removing facts from featured articles or nominating them for FARC just to gain a re-action. My observations of her are that she fixes an editor or page in her sights and then refuses to be detracted. She will attack their work and them personally. She does not just bait people, or argue - she makes their wiki-life intolerable. One of her strategies is to turn up at a high profile page, cut across those who have written it and monitor it and insist on her views being inserted, if there is any hesitation by those monitoring the page, then she attacks them in any way possible - without justification. Basically, Mattisse's arrival on a main-space page is trouble - the temptation for a timid editor to just back off must be enormous, and probably wise. Mattisse is one of the very few editors I have come across here, who really does hamper building the encyclopedia, this is not Wiki-politics - this is damage to mainspace and those creating and promoting it. I have no doubt as a consequence of me saying this, she will stalk my edits and pages I monitor even further, but it has to be said: the project would be better off without her. Mattisse needs to go to arbitration, I have never brought an Arbcase, and have no intention of doing so now - but this is surely where Mattisse needs to be. Giano (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This needs some diffs, let me add them, please. Please see recent vengeful and vexatious FAR nomination here. Especially scroll down and read from "Ease of editing break" where Scott MacDonald ("you apparently are new here and have mistaken notions about FAR") forcefully discusses the nomination. And note this nasty edit summary. Mattisse is the only single editor in the discussion who says the article needs improvement to remain at FA status. This kind of thing is disruptive of the FAC/FAR pages. Bishonen | talk 10:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thank you Bishonen, I'm not good at finding diffs, she has unsuccessfully nominated pages before for FARC that I am the primary editor of, that is not what bothers me, the FA star is fleeting accolade, and I have rather moved on from writing them, it is the damage to content that she causes and demands, and the stress she cause to others in her demands. Threads such as this [179] , Buckingham palace is just one page that springs instantly to mind. For a long time those that monitor the page had been wanting a better led image, but the right one never seemed to come along, then when it was under serious discussion, a suitable new one had been found, along came Mattisse and just poisoned the debate with her nasty influence [180] everyone wanted the new image there it was just the format and editing that was debated - Mattisse had contributed nothing to that page yet she turned up like a banshee just to cause trouble. This is her entry to the debate [181]. People like me do not spend months writing a page and then demand that it stagnates - and to infer that one does to a content editor is a personal attack. However, neither does one cease to care or want to see it spoilt on the hurried whim. Mattisse does not just lack wiki-etiquette she's destructive to constructive debate. Her's is not boldly editing, it's trouble making and it is damaging the content of the project. [182] [183] This is just a small example (both facts were re-added within hours having been easily found on the internet - one re-added by an Arb). It's my view that she damages mainspace just for some perverted pleasure, in the hope someone will become angry with her, then she can play "poor little me." Giano (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Giano
  2. Bishonen | talk 10:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  3. much of what Giano writes echoes my experience at major depressive disorder's FAC. However it is intermittent I have seen, but what proportion of edits being disruptive is too much? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm sorry to say I have to agree. However this "sometime" behaviour of hers is in marked contrast to the majority of her work (which appears civil and trouble free) though it is very unpleasant for the unfortunate editors on the recieving end of it. Fainites barleyscribs 15:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solutions

[edit]

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.  

Stop unsupported allegations

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. Support, but it should be noted that the unfounded and untrue allegations, without diffs or evidence, against many editors, continue, even after the feedback of this RFC (which called for no sanctions, only a change in this behavior). [184] [185] [186] The behaviors unfortunately have not abated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note Sandy, you have already noted the first link above. Because I accidentally saved a comment there, meant to be transferred to the RFC is no reason to list it again, as you did above. I have now reverted my mistake, so it will show up on my contributions a third time (the same link) - so I guess you may add it for a third time. A "Triple jeopardy" case! Indicted three times for the same link to my personal notes in my archive. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I will never be free of her following me around. Unfortunately, her obsession with following me around has not abated. Please just ban me and save me from this, please. —Mattisse (Talk) 07:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mattisse, if you want to leave Wikipedia, that is your choice. If you want to stay and contribute productively, then all we are asking is that you do so without throwing around unsupported allegations. Your comment above includes yet another one of these allegations with no diffs. Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - For the records, the first of the links that SandyGeorgia uses in her Support to support my continuing bad behavior is a link to my own archive which she had alread provided above under the evidence against me: [[187]] (now #99). As I tried to assume evidence to explain my archive material above, I accidentally saved the changes in archive instead of on the RFC page. Sandy noted that in my contributions and turned into a new charge against me when she saw it in my Contributions Now, if I undo the archive page to return it to its original state (revert my accidental saving, since I have already put the material on this page), I am afraid I will be accused by SandyGeorgia again that these "behaviors unfortunately have not abated" as above.
    Question - May I rollback my own archive without reprisal of from Sandy Georgia? —Mattisse (Talk) 19:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I rolled back my archive of accidental changes that Sandy lists against in her comment about me continuing bad behavior, to remove the mistaken entries. Therefore Sandy may add [188] to list showing my bad behavior continues, as it is now in my contribution list. This will mark the third time Sandy will use this same link to my archives to indict me in this RFC. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. It is essential that editors approaching FAC, GAs or reviews can see that their work will be judged on its merits - however tough that judgement is - rather than being dragged into other editors personal issues, unjustified slurs and unsupported conduct allegations. Is that so difficult to achieve? Fainites barleyscribs 22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the only reason why in the end I decided to endorse this RfC. The review processes have to be above reproach. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, as per my comment above. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Malleus, have you read through the two MDD FACs? Have you read Snowmans and Silk Tork's evaluations of that situation? Or are you going by the views of other? Is this an independent view based on your own evaluation of the evidence? Considering I was so very influenced by your views for a while, I can see that Sandy's "comment and dewatch" for your page was indeed wise. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going by what I always go by, what I believe to be true. If I could hope to offer you just one last piece of advice it would be this: try not to personalise every disagreement you have here on wikipedia. Sometimes people just disagree, nothing sinister in that. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't answer the question. It sounds like you are saying that you believe what others say, not what you investigate for yourself. What you "believe to be true". Well, we can all say that. I am going what I believe to be true also. But at least I have looked at the facts and am not just parroting my peer group. Are you afraid they will be after you next (since I was copying you for a while there)? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer your question directly, I do not accept as fact what others tell me; I never have, and I never will. I make up my own mind based on the evidence presented. Furthermore, I am arrogant enough to dismiss any idea of a "peer group" as an unachievable dream shared by those who don't agree with me. That last was a feeble attempt at a joke, in a perhaps equally feeble attempt to encourage you once again to look at this RfC as a wake-up call. Not as any kind of a punishment, or editors baying for your blood, because there is nobody here who wants that. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. The RFC is a wake up call. A few diffs as examples and constructive suggestions would have done the trick. Diffs going back to May 2006, misleading, often taken out of context, a list of my typos and copy editing mistakes, Dweller's attempt to block me for an acknowledged joke - yes it is a wake up call. This is called trashing a human being. They have effectively proven that I am unfit to copy edit, to work on FAC or FA articles and that I am a bad human being. The farce that editors that are not FAC groupies are welcome at FAC is over. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Dweller's attempt to block me for an acknowledged joke"? My attempt to block you? This whole page is littered with criticism of you that you make unfounded and inaccurate accusations about other editors and... you decide to make another? I don't need to attempt to block anyone - either I pressed the block button or I did not. I did not. --Dweller (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have intention of engaging in yet another unproductive discussion, so I will simply draw your attention to what is being discussed here, namely that you "refrain from allegations of others' conduct without supplying evidence of same". Today might be a good day to start, don't you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, so you have not read it. Therefore, I suggest that until you do, it is not necessary for me to take your evaluation of my behavior seriously. Perhaps you could show me how to keep a diff collection that SandyGeorgia will not roam through and misrepresent, as she did with the links to my archives. If I had such a method, I could have a little black book also with my diff collection, and spring out my diff proofs.
    Also, outside this RFC, would you provide me with some diffs of this behavior of mine you are complaining about? Even the diffs here are misleading. I admit I made frivolous remarks about SandyGeorgia and will refrain in the future. But you are the one that taught me to complain about process on talk pages. I rarely if ever did that in the past. If you look at my edit stats, you will see a very low proportion of such edits. Over 75% of my edits are article mainspace. Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - the sheer volume of complaints is something that should be reduced. Quality, not quantity. Find a major issue. Get a collection of evidence. Try to find an optimum solution. Then, present. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse requests block

[edit]

2) Ban Mattisse indefinitely

Comment by parties:
Mattisse cannot emotionally take this poisonous atmosphere anymore. Please ban him for his own sake. He will never be free of SandyGeorgia and he cannot handle being under her heel. There is no other solution to this. The poison and ugliness and the bad faith on the part of those filing this RFC can never be dissipated. The fumes, the bringing up of almost three year of an often painful past on Wikipedia was determined to be necessary. This ugliness can never be overcome. Why it was necessary to go back to an edit made 20 days after Mattisse's first ever edit shows the true nature of this RFC. This drugging up of pain has made it impossible to continue. Mattisse has really tried, really struggled, but it is too much. There are those that must crush the vunerable. Mattisse is vulnerable and Mattisse has been crushed. Mattissee gives up. Please ban Mattisse. —Mattisse (Talk) 07:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. For clarity, it's Mattisse who has added this template; no other user that I know of wants anything more than Mattisse to calm down a little. This response is therefore sadly ironic. Mattisse (re)read what I wrote above. We want you here, you're a valuable contributor. Just please try not to upset people. For the record, Oppose. --Dweller (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is not helpful. Mattisse has to much to add, restraint in behavior is what is needed. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed with Rocksanddirt. No one here is advocating that Mattisse be banned. Or even blocked. The thrust of this RfC is that we would like to see Mattisse's behaviour moderated. Mattisse really needs to take the feedback being given on board instead of taking it as some sort of vast conspiracy to get her. It's not a vast conspiracy, or evan a small one. It's just editors who care about Mattisse and care about the project who want things to change. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While I agree that no one seems to want Mattisse banned, save Mattisse herself, at what point does the community call her bluff? I'm new to her, but I've quickly tired of the behavior she's displaying. This latest "ban-me-I'm-a-Martyr" thing she's doing, both here and at Risker's talkpage is just beyond the pale. SDJ 21:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that if the behavior documented here continues for much longer, this will end up at arbitration. It is reminding me more and more of the Zeraeph case. Karanacs (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I know understand how Zeraeph case came to be. SandyGeorgia was involved in that also. I was only involved in the latter part, because SandyGeorgia jumped into my page to trash Zeraeph. I am being to understand how Zeraeph became as she did, although I do not know her back story. Sandy is turning me into Zeraeph. Agree. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an ugly confrontational RFC that begins with diffs starting almost three years ago, the 20th day of my editing ever here, and then gives an endless list of my faults (most trivial example), by two people who have never given me credit (Caliber slightly has because of work on MDD pointed out by others) is not meant to encourage an editor to become better or to feel that the "community" cares. Such an RFC is alienating, nasty, generates poisonous feeling that now will continue forever. The RFC has accomplished is goal. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mattisse, if you want to leave so badly, do so. No one is forcing you to remain (while at the same time, no one is advocating that you be forcibly removed from the project). Stop blaming all of your issues on Sandy (she neither created nor certified this RfC). You are creating a poisonous atmosphere that is overshadowing the good that you do. That is a tremendous shame, because you do have a lot to offer. Karanacs (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Karanacs, how do you know that? She has been after me for quite a while now, over a year atleast. I have not allowed to post on her talkpage for at least a year. How do you know what was devised via email and such. Sandy is much too smart to openly start this RFC. Are you saying she did not collect diffs, diffs that had to be collected over time? This was not a spontaneous RFC. I think you are wrong, and that Sandy is the prime mover of this RFC with Calisber, because of the MDD mess, was willing, as one of Sandy's favorites, to do the dirty work. I don't think Calisber was behind this. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, suspicions, speculations, etc, with no proof. If Casliber had not started this RfC I was prepared to do so next week, without any discussion with/help from SandyGeorgia or anyone else. (Unfortunately, it is impossible for me to prove a negative). I think you have a lot to offer. I had hoped that this process would help you see how to offer your talents in a more constructive way. Karanacs (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for my own information, considering I have close to 59,000 edits, starting May 6, 2006, you would have been willing to go through all of those in a few days to assemble this RFC? I would like to know because I cannot do this myself. I would appreciate someone's explaining how to do this in such a short time to me. Karanacs, you would have done that? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, considering that I started editing wikipedia with no internet experience and no knowledge of internet culture, do you think that after almost three years, do you think that the diffs that have been found definitely cannot be attributed to internet and wikipedia inexperience, plus confusion over seen some editors regularly getting away with much more slander and obscenity and such, than my comparatively mild statements? Do you think that if SandyGeorgia had not forbidden communication with her, that if she had offer me tips as I had asked her a long time ago to to but she declined, that might have helped me in my lonely quest? And when I did find a seemingly understanding editor, Malleus, he gave me advice that got me into trouble? Where doe a person like me turn to for help? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here. You turn here. These are concrete examples of actions or comments of yours that others have found indicative of ongoing problems, coupled with positive feedback on your work that others have appreciated. This is the help—the place to begin fixing things—and it's not nearly as confrontational as you are making it out to be. Maralia (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you mean "Here. You turn here." There are no concrete example of anything positive I have done. Some people outside FAC have given me positive feedback, but have you noticed that the FAC people have ignored these imputs. No, they move on to the bad stuff. (Sandy has never once complimented me, there is only criticism from her in this RFC meant to "help" an "encourage" better behavior from me.) Besides, there are no diffs of my positive behavior, and it has been made perfectly clear that statements without diffs do not count. I am totally lost when you say, "This is the help—the place to begin fixing things—and it's not nearly as confrontational as you are making it out to be." Where is the help? Dragging out every failure of mine (with diffs) over the last three years is the help? I don't get it. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but my opinion of this RFC is that it is incredibly petty. If Sandy did not take offense to some "off the cuff" comments about "Big Wig", this nasty RFC would not be happening. Why not just limit the RFC to those remarks rather than going back to May 2006? And if those who produced this RFC did so with the intent of encouraging better working relationships with me, then show me where in this RFC this is manifest? This feels like a hatchet job. It takes away my self respect, it drags out painful, unfortunate incidences in the past having nothing at all to with FAC or the present complaint. So what is the point, except to humiliate me enough to leave Wikipedia? Most of the diffs are just not that awful. In fact they are pretty run of the mill, especially for the time in the past before such political correctness set in.
    • Many of my sins were being humorous. When Coeil was obscene etc., he was being humorous and his block was roundly condemned by Sandy who made sure it was over turned quickly. My humorous comment, which Calisber acknowledged was such at the time it was made, he published on a public page so that an admin said I should be blocked without warning. Sandy was silent. There is a double standard here. It is very hard for me to feel any good will from those that produced this RFC. I do thank Calisber for his kind acknowledgment of the import role I placed in the MDD FAC. I very much do but that is the only kindness shown, and it was shown only after several others who had read through the FAC or were part of it said that my role was enormous. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You ask "if those who produced this RFC did so with the intent of encouraging better working relationships with me, then show me where in this RFC this is manifest?"; the answer is here: #Desired outcomes. The point of bringing up prior incidents is not to "humiliate" you, but to show you the patterns that others are seeing in your interactions over time. Personally, I have spent a great deal of time recently looking through your contributions, because I wanted to understand what could have triggered the derisive tone of your posts about FAC (and FAC regulars) over the last six months. I still don't know the answer, but I'd like to. Maralia (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Desired outcomes? Bringing up every unsavory diff that can be found is meant to encourage a better working relationship? I am afraid it has done the very opposite. Did you read those diffs. I do not have problems with other editors. With almost three years here, I have had my beefs and a few awful experiences. But I also weathered seven months of brutal sockpuppet harassment. Show me an editor, unconnected with FAC, with whom I am having a problem?
    Also, you said that the criticism was "with positive feedback on your work that others have appreciated." Where is that? Show me a FAC editor that has given me positive feedback.
    Further, you thought up the idea of an RFC all by yourself and were ready to implement it, you say? Was this a group think, esp or what? You would have gone back to May 2006 and gone through 57,000 edit? Forgive me, but that does not sound credible to me. Would you show me your diff collection? Do you have one on the ready, as Sandy does? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mattisse, I'm not certain, but I don't think that the blocking policy allows individual editors to be blocked to prevent themselves from editing Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I am confused by the sudden gender change (or, maybe I missed something before), but I find this to be the worse possible solution. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are those that must crush the vunerable. Mattisse is vulnerable and Mattisse has been crushed. Mattissee gives up." I have never read such self-pitying drivel in all my life, and it fools me not. This "poor little me act" is just that. Mattisse has become a mainspace nuisance, and turning on the tap is not going to alter that. Oh, and for the record I am not here at the instigation of Sandy Georgia (or anyone else) Mattisse has acheived my presence quite by her/himsself, as God know how many edits on God knows how many pages prove. Giano (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship

[edit]

3) Given how this is unfolding, is it worth considering mentorship of some form? Someone (hopefully) who can be on Mattisse's 'side' as it were, in the future and help with analysis and reflection? OK, this is a highly stressful situation, but (often) so can be FAC and GAN (where other blow-ups have occurred), hence maybe a mentor will help smoothe some of these situations in future. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:
Mattisse
The only "blowups" I have had at GAN and GAR has involved SandyGeorgia's participation there in articles with which I was already involved, and in each instance I did the right thing by GAN and GAR standards. If SandyGeorgia did not interfere with articles or issues that I was already involved with at GAN and GAR, I can't remember any problems there. In fact, I just received a barnstar from them. I have no problems with editors there.
You and SandyGeorgia have effectively shown that I am unfit to participate in FAC or in copy editing FA or FAC articles. I make typos, copy edit incorrectly, I sometimes make incorrect statements. I am too insistent that an article be correct. I don't let issues slide easily enough. I react with anger sometimes at her negative remarks about me, and probably other faults also. I do not like my talk page being filled with comments from editors lobbying for an article to be passed at FAC, so I am intolerant there also. I think the general tenor is that she does not want me at FAC, that I am unwelcome there. Unless you expect a mentor to go through my copy editing, I don't see how a mentor would help, since I am just not good enough for FAC by Sandy's standards. Perhaps you can persuade me I am wrong and a mentor can raise me to the copy editing standards required.
As far as the incidents of not getting along with other editors in the past, much of what Sandy alleges is untrue, taken out of context, or each party has moved on. Other than FAC editors, I do not have enemies at Wikipedia. Outside of FAC, just SandyGeorgia is my enemy. And apparently she has proved to her own satisfaction that I was unfit as long ago as May 2006. Can a mentor help with consistutional unfitness?
Regardless of combing through my every fault from May 2006 on, I am surprised how little there actually is. In fact if you leave Sandy out, I don't have that much trouble at FAC. I have copy edited scores and scores of FAC articles with no problems. The problems are with SandyGeorgia and you, Casliber. That's it really. Could a mentor help with that? Considering I am not wanted at FAC, the energy that went into producing this RFC proves that, I wonder what a mentor can do to help. Again, maybe you have suggestions otherwise. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I asked about getting a mentor in the past and was told no. So probably there is not one anyway. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said before, all article related comments are fine, it is the way-out allegations and generalisations that are the problem. Someone to help in this area. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Mattisse were willing, I could see a potential benefit in her having two mentors. One could serve as her advocate to help when she is having trouble making her point (especially in stressful situations, such as FAC), or perhaps just as a sounding board to determine if a certain response is appropriate. The other would provide advice and potential sanctions in case of inappropriate behavior/commentary. (I believe it would be difficult for one person to serve both of these roles, but I am sure there are some talented Wikipedians out there who could.) Mattisse would have to agree on who the appointed mentor(s) would be and make a commitment to work with them. Karanacs (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot image that you can come up with anyone I could possibly respect after this RFC. The hypocrisy in all this "wanting to help" after ripping a person's self integrity apart is disgusting. Give me an up front sock puppet RFC any day. They do not seek to destroy the soul as the FAC elite does. And they cloth it all in "Cheers". I am so repulsed. —Mattisse (Talk) 07:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a mentor would not be someone you feel you cannot trust, and not someone you fear is a part of some group which may be hostile to you. There are alot of other experienced WP editors out there. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that if your leave out SandyGeorgia's complaints about some of my frivolous comments in edit summary to which she takes offense, and if you leave out the disgraceful handling of the MDD FAC and the way I was treated there, including the badgering by GrahamColin, Casliber, and others on my talk page regarding the MDD FAC, you will find that there is not much to complain about in my behavior. The inexplicable and sudden interjection of Lar++ on my talk page lends a sense of skulduggery to this whole RFC. SandyGeorgia has inflated any amount of disruption I may have caused on talk pages from minor to world-ending. I made helpful suggestions on talk pages, including promoting and labeling Awadewit‎'s proposal and I suggested the word "context".
I see this RFC as an attempt to subdue an enemy, and not reflective of enduring, bad behavior on my part. I see no overwhelming condemnation of my behavior from editors I have dealt with, but rather much kindness, even from those solicited by Casliber as surely good bets to say something bad.
I will refrain from making frivolous remarks about SandyGeorgia. Other than that, (considering that I am human and do make sincere mistakes, and also get frustrated when I am working many hours a day on an article for FAC when the article's editor is writing other articles and collecting DYKs rather than responding to my concerns) I do not see anything so awful in the diffs in the RFC that warrants the RFC to begin with. Giving a blow-by-blow account of the MDD FAC characterizes the motivation behind this RFC. I have participated in hundreds of FACs with no problems whatsoever. The same with GAN/GAR, excluding those that SandyGeorgia interjected herself into, and even those were resolved once she removed herself. Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. Is there anyone that Mattisse is willing to trust? Is there anyone that Mattisse respects? Mattisse, please answer in order to help with this, if this is to be an option. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava Rima, I have real respect for you, although I know you do not like me. I have stood up for you a couple of times, as I feel (though you may not like this comparison) that I am more similar to you than the rest. As far as who I would trust, I would have to think about that, as so many have left Wikipedia for good. Just to throw out some names of people I respect: User:Geometry guy, User:Snowmanradio, User:Coppertwig, User:Ling.Nut (but I don't want to do this to him!), User:SilkTork but probably these people do not want to get imvolved. I trust User:Carcharoth, User:Risker but they are arbcom members now. I will try to think of others who I both trust and who have the strength to help me survive those that want me gone. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone considering mentoring should bear in mind that Mattisse frequently ends up paranoid about people who try to help/befriend her; she did it to User:Blueboar when he mediated on an article, saying he was part of some conspiracy against her. I think she did it to someone else, who tried to help over the Che Guevara article, she did it to Sandy Georgia and to me, others too I expect. Sticky Parkin 23:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please supply diffs, Parkin, instead of continuing these unsupported allegations. Warmest Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not hard to find, you know yourself what happened with blueboar and the others. [189] virtually the whole of this page, especially the first thread summarises perhaps the situ. That is shortish so not too annoying for people to take a look at. Blueboar offered to mediate on an article, the response to his -volunteer- mediation was charges of unfairness, conspiracy, sockpuppetry etc. You were blocked for incivility at this time [190] then you accused User:LessHeard vanU of conspiring with Blueboar (Less. refutes this on Blueboar's talk page in the version shown above. User:SandyGeorgia stood up for you when you were in an edit war or something with User:Zeraeph, then since you've been working on FACs she's repeatedly had to ask you not to make personal attacks towards her, as recounted on this page. You had a warm relationship with her, as can be seen by the barnstars you gave her [191], then you turned on her and again accused another editor of conspiring against you. I think by the Che Guervara stuff I meant User:Coppertwig, he has apologised for any misunderstandings between you but then that's what he's like, others would make less concessions to your view. As can be seen here, this editor voluntarily stepped in to try to help, you were friendly to him at first, then started with the accusations. [192] She even had repect for the FAR process at first [193] and then started with her accusations of conspiracy at FAR, another demonstration of how she might appear to love or take on advice from someone one week, then accuse people of being in a conspiracy the next. Sticky Parkin 16:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Sticky Parkin

Blueboar I have explained twice above, and I still believe he was wrong in not following policy by allowing my article to be copy/pasted into another, then defending the other editor at my expense. I regret the incident and will never enter Mediation again so that I will not be put in that position. User:LessHeard vanU and I are on good terms as we mutually decided to drop the issue. (And he was reprimanded in ArbCom for his role in taking User:Zeraeph's side in the dispute and in unblocking User:Zeraeph. He has admitted his error and User:Zeraeph is now banned for a year. User:Coppertwig has denied any notable problems with me or my behavior in his outside view posted in this RFC. As to the main problem that I gather from the diffs presented in the RFC, that I offended SandyGeorgia, I admit to this and I am sorry for doing this. I admit that I made frivolous, unkind remarks and that I continued to make them, even after I knew they were upsetting her. I will take great care to no longer do that. I apologize to SandyGeorgia.

I have been gratified by the wonderful support I have received in this RFC and am truly grateful to all those that chose to go out of their way and be helpful and kind to me. I have learned much from them and am very touched that so many chose to see my mistakes as mistakes. I have received two barnstars because of the RFC. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Special Barnstar
Awarded for championing the ideals of encyclopedic writing and bringing about countless article improvements as part of her GA review work. Jayen466 15:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---Major depressive disorder---

The Original Barnstar
A barnstar for Mattisse in recognition of her work in helping bring 'Major depressive disorder to FA status. SilkTork *YES! 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the warmth from the community which I have never felt before. So I thank everyone who participated in this RFC. Overall, this was a good experience from which I have hopefully permanently benefited and my behavior in the future will show this. This is the first time I have felt part of the Wiki community in the almost three years I have been here. I cannot express my gratitude enough. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desist accusations against Mattisse

[edit]

4) Given the accusations by Casliber and SandyGeorgia listed against me appear largely unsupported by others editors, and pertain to a tiny percentage of my overall participation on Wikipedia, I think this whole RFC can be seen as an over reaction by Calisber and SandyGeorgia to the enormous stress created by FAC. I urge them to desist in their accusations as not productive and to assume good faith.

Casliber 's allegations are mostly over one FAC article Major depressive disorder, which he appears to consider his, and which I am the second highest contributor, all of my contributions being during the FAC and therefore putting me in the position of largely being responsible for upgrading the article to FAC status. He might have been stressed also over his ArbCom election. I asked him an election question whether "Cheers" was an appropriate signature as an Arbitrator, as he lists this question in his allegations against me. He made a joke of my question at the time. However, he has now dropped the "Cheers" when he signs ArbCom statements. Likewise, SandyGeorgia's accusations revolve mostly around FAC and include a very small sample of my total participate there, largely complaints over my attempts to upgrade the Major depressive disorder article, from which she may have experienced much stress. FAC is stressful for anyone who tries to participate there. I suggest both Casliber and SandyGeorgia assume good faith and let me continue to contribute to Wikipedia without further harassment from either of them. I suggest that all of us, including Casliber and SandyGeorgia try not to let the stressful atmosphere of FAC (and suggestion or complaints made about FAC) get to us. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(subsequent material moved to talk page here)

Discussion

[edit]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse_3&oldid=1153979594"