Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3

Deescalation is better than escalation

I happened to notice this RfC and have been following developments. I am commenting after this query by Ottava Rima, answered by Casliber.

It is quite understandable to regard an RfC as an escalation of a dispute, a step on the road to ArbCom. However, such a viewpoint is unhelpful at resolving problems. In this case, I rather hope that the RfC might serve as a wake-up call not only to Mattisse, but to other editors who have run into conflict with her, or otherwise become embroiled. We cannot go on like this.

In my view the conflict here has been escalated by unhealthy levels of paranoia, with more than one editor following contributions of others, afraid or concerned that other editors are trying to do them down. That is not the kind of atmosphere which makes our volunteer efforts to contribute to the world's number one free encyclopedia enjoyable.

The many diffs show that there is a problem, but it is a problem which has been escalated by editors, Mattisse in particular, thinking there is a problem and (over)reacting to it. As Casliber replies, this is an issue that really needs outside views, and I hope that involved editors will limit their contributions to a few facts and diffs, and also consider ways in which they might disengage and deescalate, rather that look for ways to pin the blame on others. Geometry guy 23:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm gonna drop an F-bomb here; all blocking admins get ready to hover over your buttons. ;-) Seriously, when you think people are giving you trouble on Wikipedia, the healthiest and sanest response is "So what the fuck? My wife loves me. My dog loves me. My God loves me. Everyone else is just the peanut gallery." Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even without a wife, dog, or god, editors edit in their leisure time. Walking away is an underused conflict resolution tool. On the occasions I've done it, it has made me happier, and I recommend it to others. Geometry guy 00:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, are you slighting my dog? Them's fightin' words, boooooy. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ling, because you like humor - because of the glare on my monitor, I read "God" as "goat". I was quite amused. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What bothers me the most about incivility is when it is directed at new editors. New editors may not be aware of how unregulated and chaotic the editing environment is here. Indeed, like I was at first, they may actually expect that this project is more professionally managed than it is. I know that you all are aware that this project is a volunteer project, it can't progress if new or potential editors get chased away. Cla68 (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...there are new editors involved? Seriously, who? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speaking in a general sense, but also in the sense that sometimes we don't know if a new editor is involved. If a new editor stumbles across an FA or GA review and observes the participants acting rudely with each other, the new editor may elect not to get involved, and we've then lost someone who might have been a productive and helpful participant in one of our forums. When I first started editing Wikipedia, if I had seen the way editors treat each other in the administrative forums, I probably would have gone elsewhere. The way it applies to this RfC is that this kind of behavior shouldn't be allowed to continue because of the unseen effects it can have. Cla68 (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopping in a bit late here, yet it's worth comment that overheated FAC discussions also drive away experienced editors. It's no accident that I've contributed well over a hundred featured pictures and dozens of featured sounds, yet rarely show up at FAC. Durova^Charge! 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and I and others have almost pleaded with her to cease with the flailing comments. However, in some ways it is hard to be objective when you are in the middle of it, hence the RfC (i.e. am I imagining this or is it real? How does it look to others when they read the diffs?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never dared suggest an article for GA or FAC, partly because I've seen the problems. I don't like how vehement/frequent mattisse is in declining them; but I only know how she acts because I view her contribs etc, for all I know a lot of others giving their views there are the same. Are they? Not pleasant- but then again having poor articles passed for FA (esp. because perhaps the few editors there like them or the nominator) would be just as bad/worse I suppose. Sticky Parkin 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky Parkin, do you have an example of this happening (within the last year, for instance)? It is unfortunate for a meme to take hold because one editor has aggressively pushed the notion; if it has happened, I'd appreciate knowing about it and seeing the evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse is an excellent contributor to GAN. As far as I can tell, she both passes and fails articles, according to merit and with professionalism. It is only the more stressful environments of GAR and FAC/FAR that have led to problems, as far as I am aware. Geometry guy 02:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WT:FAC is the correct place to argue whether substandard FAs have been passed, don't you think? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is; yet the RFC documents that Mattisse has alleged problems with many processes (not just FAC, but DYK, GAN and GAR) on many other pages, and now it appears that Sticky Parkin may share the concern. I agree that if Sticky Parkin has an FAC example, it might be discussed at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Mattisse posted yet another unfounded, unanswered allegation about FAC to the GAN talk page in the last few days,[1] rather than start a collegial discussion at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks more like dissatisfied grumbling than allegations to me. Unfounded and inaccurate, surely, and also not a good thing, but not worthy of sanctions (or even much attention) either. Geometry guy 03:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, this RFC is not calling for sanctions; it's asking for a change in behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, so we should do what we can to maximize the chances of that happening. Geometry guy 11:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a place to endorse or otherwise comment on the desired outcome on the page (hint hint) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was a reluctant supporter of this RfC, because I have seen the amazingly good work that Mattisse has done at both GA and FA. My only concern is the long-term disparaging of the various review processes and those who take part on them, and that's all I want to to see checked. If there are valid grounds for concern about the integrity of GA/FA or any of the other review processes then that needs to be addressed, but so far all I've seen is vague allegations that are never backed up with solid evidence. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That comment at WT:GAN that Sandy provided the diff of really riled me up; I had to exercise a lot of restraint to not post a long rant. However, after taking time away from that area, I took the time to examine Mattisse's contributions, and was impressed with her dedication to content quality and good reviewing. I feel that her intentions are good, but she lets her emotions take control of her sometimes; something that is further fueled by the inherently stressful nature of FAC and yes, GA. I think that as Tony said on the RfC, the best thing that she could do is step back, control her feelings and return to the discussion with a firm handle on the rhetoric. Sanctions seem unnecessary and would unnecessarily add tension to the situation. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I also think that Mattisse's corrosive effect on the various review processes need to be addressed, not put to one side and dismissed as some kind of reaction to stress. Sticky Parkin's comments above are a good example of repeated allegations subtly becoming "the truth". --Malleus Fatuorum 04:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is rather unfortunate. I don't suppose there is some way to conceive a kind of "review probation", is there, as that rather sounds like a sanction in itself. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those thinking Mattisse's allegations about FAC etc in general are so bad should see some of her comments to individual editors in other debacles, before she started doing the FACs much, is all I can say. This behaviour is a great improvement. As to FAC and GA, it wouldn't surprise me if not many new editors are commenting, is all I'm saying. Even the process of DYK's I have found to seem aggro sometimes. Sticky Parkin 18:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this meant to excuse her commentary, or get FAC participants to accept it and work with it because it could be worse? I don't even know what her behavior was before; I just know that what I have seen recently is not positive nor conducive to collaboration. --Moni3 (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to Moni, if people think there is a real problem at FAC, I wish they would specify the problem so that FAC can try to fix it. Vague allegations and innuendos with no substance don't give the FAC regulars anything to work with. It's almost impossible to fix a problem if no one is willing to define it. Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is - if Matisse genuinely believes all the bad faith assumptions and allegations she makes, presumably she feels justified in her statements - which are then, not surprisingly, taken as unwarranted attacks by those on the receiving end. How is Matisse to be convinced that there is no "reviewing processes" cabal? (Unless there is one of course). Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't care what most editors secretly believe. I have a problem with any editor who posts allegations against processes or other editors and who provides no supporting evidence, even when repeatedly asked to do so. Without the evidence, all we have is a conspiracy theory that is difficult for others to try to provn or disprove. If you repeat the conspiracy theory enough times, other people begin to think it is true, and the meme spreads, potentially causing great damage to reputations when it is untrue. Evidence needs to be provided, so that the claims can be properly evaluated. Karanacs (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Sticky, you should post some diffs to back up your repeated allegations such as "Those thinking Mattisse's allegations about FAC etc in general are so bad should see some of her comments to individual editors in other debacles, before she started doing the FACs much, is all I can say. This behaviour is a great improvement." Please give some examples to what you are referring. I started doing FAC's a couple of years ago, so to what period are you referring? —Mattisse (Talk) 03:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Mattisse, I would like to apologize again for giving you a strong warning when such was uncalled-for, back in March [2]. I should have struck out the whole comment, and I'm sorry for any effect it had on you. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Coppertwig. Especially for realizing that I am a human being and for being kind to me. Thank you. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A small courtesy

In this RfC Mattisse has explicitly self-identified as a "he". So as a small courtesy and an indication that we are reading the editor's posts, could we please honor his indication of gender and stop referring to Mattisse as "she"?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that and was surprised. It would be good to clarify as I (and others) had assumed Mattisse was a "she", though come to think of it I cannot recall where or when it was discussed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced through the response again and didn't see that. Could you quote here, please? I thought (but can't find a diff), that Mattisse had previously self-identified as female, but I could very well be confused. Karanacs (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KarenAnn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and she has referred to the "granny defense" wrt previous sockpuppets (in this discussion, her third approach asking for my help, which led to the Zeraeph arbcom). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And previously self-identified as female [3][4]. Karanacs (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was disoriented too. Given the past evidence, my best guess is that in the Gollum defense ("Matisse has been bad, please punish Mattisse") reads better with male pronouns, but I am probably more clueless than most commentators here. Geometry guy 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:-( …well I should have known better to get involved…--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will refactor my comment. Durova^Charge! 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←) (ec) Erm, I don't think you spotted the nuance in my reply. Going through the RfC revising gender associations is no more helpful than getting them wrong in the first place. Mattisse self-identifies as female in multiple places, cited above. But wtf, who cares: using the correct gender is pretty minor compared with understanding the people involved and their interactions. Geometry guy 00:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the major headache that has emerged around it is symptomatic of the problems in interacting too (i.e. shouldn't be a big deal, but it is). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Mattisse

I do not have the library of diffs that SandyGeorgia has, but 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. Of course, at that point I was not aware of the feud with SlimVirgin and that Zeraeph was a vehicle for that. So at the time, I thought she was being helpful, but now I feel I was a tool to get back at SlimVirgin. And no, I do not have diffs, but there was an Arbitration shortly after of SandyGeorgia, SlimVirgin and Zeraeph that has since been renamed to Zeraeph. Having vanquished SlimVirgin, I believe I am next on the list. As they say, history is written by the winners.

As for being a female, I don't see that as anyone's business. However, do you know I did not have a sex change operation? Must all be disclosed on Wikipedia? Males definitely are held to a different standard than females. Witness OrangeMarlin's behavior (no I don't have diffs at my finger tips). He is welcomed on Sandy's page, whereas I, who may fumble and ruffle feather, have not the meanness, incivility, and outright harmfulness of OrangeMarlin. I believe he is under sanctions by Arbcom. I, by comparison, may shoot myself in my own foot, but I do not have his maliciousness. But he is a male, so in Sandy's eyes, his behavior is tolerable apparently. There is a double standard. As far as my sex, if that is So important, than decide what you want and render your decisions accordingly.

Lets put all of my poor, pathetic history on the table. Why no mention of the sockpuppet ring persecuting me for more than six months, some of whom are still quoted on wikipedia, as their sockpuppet status is not known. Much of their evidence was used to persecute me and is still used today. You go back to my early, painful beginnings in this RFC to help me you say? To encourage me to be a productive member of this community? It sure does not feel like that at all. If feels that you have gone through three years of my contributions to find every ugly incident you could (except inexplicable the ones I was vindicated for are left out). Now we have the ugliness exposed. Yes, that makes me feel like this is a fair effort to encourage me! As OragneMarlin said on the other page, I write long, boring posts that he cannot bother to read. So I don't expect any kind of human understanding here. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So in this gender-based analysis, how come Moni3 get special treatment (as you have alleged at this RfC)? Geometry guy 00:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Moni3 is a "good" little girl. It is ok to be female if you are sugar and spice and everything nice. Males don't have to be "goody goody". —Mattisse (Talk) 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This, I will not abide. Moni is treated the way she is because she's an outstanding editor, who also knows how to treat other's with respect. As far as contributions to this project go, you won't find much better work on this project than what Moni did for To Kill a Mockingbird. I was proud to have played a small role in the development of that article, but Moni is first class, both as an editor and as a person. I won't let you denigrate her for your little self-pitying games. SDJ 02:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moni3 is obviously not a helpless little girl, she can take care of herself. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for certain. I would have leapt to the defense of any non-present editor (male or female) who was being attacked like that. Sorry if it came across as a bit sexist. I just really enjoyed working with Moni on TKAM, and was a bit peaved that Mattisse was dragging her through the mud in her attempted martyrdom. SDJ 02:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK Mattisse, I am happy to refactor the RfC, what pronoun would you like used? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer "it". —Mattisse (Talk) 00:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattisse, I intended only to be courteous and use the appropriate gender. If you would like me to change it back please let me know. Regarding the Zeraeph/SandyGeorgia/SlimVirgin matter, I was directly involved in that arbitration and I assure you it's one of the cases ArbCom got right. Sandy's conduct was, to the best of my knowledge, entirely courteous and appropriate throughout that ordeal. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 00:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova, I don't disagree with you on the Zeraeph/SandyGeorgia/SlimVirgin matter. In fact, I wrote a long, passionate defense of Sandy in that arbitration. That was before she turned on me. As for gender, it hardly matters. I am a joke here now. Call me "it"; that is what I would prefer. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, I am trying very hard to be patient and not respond to the abundance of unsubstantiated claims made on this page, as it is so apparent that you are having a hard time and not able to recognize how many editors are trying to give helpful information here, without calling for any sanctions. (Just as I did when you first approached me for help, and just as Malleus did.) Yet, in spite of the clear message that many editors are only asking that you refrain from unsubstantiated innuendo, rumor and allegations (that are damaging many editors and numerous content review processes), it continues. I did not approach you first: see User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch24#Will you help me?, which was after you twice approached me in e-mail (9/30/2007 and 10/31/2007), asking for help with the Right to Vanish. I don't know how or why you decided to approach me. As explained on the RfC, I offered to help you, but withdrew when you lodged a personal attack only days later, compromising a FAC so that I had to recuse and pass that FAC to Raul. I understand you may be disappointed that I was unable to mentor you, but your attack on someone involved in a FAC compromised my position as FAC delegate, and is not a position I can put myself in. It is hard to respond to most of your other statements, as they aren't backed by diffs, making it difficult to understand why you hold the ideas you do. It is unfortunate that you have been so hurt so many times by your Wiki experience, but I ask you to consider the helpful and friendly tone taken by most respondants to this RFC, and to try to make sure you provide diffs and evidence to back all of your claims, as the page is now replete with information that is simply incorrect. At least Geometry guy, Ling.Nut, Tony1, Ottava Rima and many others have praised your contributions and tried to show you a way forward, to stop the unfounded allegations and undue attention on one editor (me). Please heed the advice and friendship these editors have offered you; you are making things harder on yourself, not recognizing that nothing is being asked here except that you stop making statements that aren't backed by evidence. No one has yet asked that you be banned from any process or has devalued your work; please try to see this in the proper context. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy

What needs diffs now? My statements reflect my memory and feelings as I have tried to make clear. I am a human being. Not everything boils down to diffs. I do not have the vault of diffs you have for every occasion to pull out to trump my rightness. I am but a human. And frankly I don't want to become that kind of person. You are caught in minutia and cannot see the big picture. The horrible damage to me is justified because you have diffs to proof I am a horrible person.

You have boiled this RFC down to a maze of diffs that I can not even follow for the most part. The issue, I thought, was my behavior now, and specifically regarding FAC. Why does that require diffs going back to May 2006? If your motivation was to encourage and help me, all you had to do was give a few relevant recent diffs to illustrate the problem and then make some proactive, positive suggestions. Instead you chose to drag me through the mud. (For diffs to prove that statement, please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3.)

You also could have taken a more positive approach yourself. Why was it so hard for you to give me a little praise now and then for the hard work I did on FACs. I was thanked by many others, received Barnstars and such, but all you could do was come up with a list of typos. (For diffs to prove that statement, please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3.) You lavished praise on others. Perhaps I will spend a month or two finding those diff. However, I challenge you to provide one diff of praise for my work.

I take comfort in the fact that the two none FAC groupies who actually read through completely the MDD FAC saw the truth of what happened in that FAC. For you to go through my every misstep as perceived by you in the diffs in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3, I cannot express what an ugly approach that is. It is bad enough to go through that FAC, I am not going be razor bladed by your maze of diffs now. When I saw the complaint of all CAPS, than is when I decided that I would not bother with any more of the MDD diffs. Editors disagreed among themselves whether they preferred inline comments to be in all CAPs or not. So I was somehow wrong for that? I tried to do what it seemed they preferred I do. When I saw that this was the level you were operating on, I decided it was hopeless to bother defending myself in that FAC.

I was doing my best. You did not help me during that FAC but only made it more difficult. I know that Snowman and I pulled that mess of an FAC together. I guess I am being punished for that also.

You are the superior person. You are always right. You have accomplished your goal. Your way of helping me is to prove to me with diffs that I am terminally horrible, not just recently because I am going through a difficult period, but you proved that it was clear I was horrible 20 days into my Wikipedia experience in May 2006. You have destroyed me and you have freed FAC from having to put up with me. You got your way. Congratulations. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. You're no one's martyr, and your contributions (as good as they certainly are) don't justify how you are treating people. When someone completely uninvolved (me) happens upon this debacle, and is able to muster no sympathy for your "cause", something is wrong. Try to take the constructive criticism you've received, lose your "martyr-tude", and move along. If you choose not to, your request for banning may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. SDJ 02:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the two diffs supplied by Karanacs where Mattisse allegedly self-identified as female, I don't get the impression that Mattisse wishes to be referred to by the female pronoun; and I suggest that it may be better to delete those diffs from this page^{(02:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC))} to respect Mattisse's privacy.

Here's what I (try to) do. If someone doesn't have a male or female userbox or an obviously male or female username and I haven't seen a statement by them making it clear that it's appropriate to refer to them with a particular gender pronoun, then I assume that the person might not want their gender to be known. In that case, rather than imitating the pronoun everybody else uses to refer to the person, (which might bear no relation to either reality or the person's wishes), I use the same system I use for users whose gender is unknown.

Some people use "he" as a pronoun of indefinite gender; some use "he/she", and some use "they". I've been using "they" to refer to an indefinite person ("someone"), but when I know who I'm talking about, generally instead of pronouns I use a two-letter abbreviation for the person's username. This seems to me to work smoothly in place of "he/she", "him/her" and "his/her" (e.g. "CL's"). In place of "himself/herself" I use the delightfully oxymoronic "themself". ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coppertwig has offered excellent suggestions which I enthusiastically support. Gender of an individual should be irrelevant on Wikipedia, so not a matter over which to argue. Courteous behavior toward the individual editor's preference and level of comfort in being identified as one sex or the other sex is the appropriate factor here (just as sexual preference is, if announced). The grammatical rules are unresolved as far as I know: (he/she, she/he, (s)he, they etc.). —Mattisse (Talk) 15:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close

This RfC is not succeeding. Mattisse's comments make it increasingly clear that while she might conceed on some of the specifics, she:

does not agree with the overall picture of the complaints about her behaviour
is therefore unapologetic
is therefore unprepared to change her ways

Continuing the RfC is therefore unhelpful, as it will just deepen her sense of unjust treatment without achieving anything useful.

There are a few possible ways forward.

Formal arbitration is an option, but would be a poor outcome; given the extremely limited original aims of the RfC, it'd be like using a flame-thrower to swat a fly. Sadly, it's only Mattisse's intransigence that makes this even something to be considered, but I'd oppose it at this stage.

I'd suggest the RfC is closed and Mattisse left in peace for a while, say four weeks. It maybe that once this calms down, Mattisse can reflect on what's been said when the atmosphere is less confrontational. I'd suggest participants here behave with enormous restraint and leave interaction with her only to the truly necessary, to help deflate the tension.

If, after that time, anyone has new, genuine concerns about ongoing behaviour, a fresh Arbcom case would be regretfully be appropriate, with this RfC an important piece of evidence.

I'd like to see whether other users support the idea of closing the RfC now, and as a separate matter, what should be done next. As these are two very different issues, I've created a sub section for each. Please try and keep discussions together. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close the RfC now?

As indicated above, I urge for this RfC to be speedy closed. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dweller sums it up well above. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Close Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Shouldn't this be on the flip side of this page (i.e. the wikispace rather than talk?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure - I have limited experience of RfCs, fortunately. Anyone more knowledgable please feel free to move the thread. I wasn't sure, to be honest, if I should gain consensus here first, or go for the greater visibility of the project page. --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk space is always a good place to start, and I think most folks will agree and see this closed soon enough. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova^Charge! 16:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've achieved everything we can, until and unless Mattisse internalises the real message here (which, by the way, is NOT that there is a conspiracy to "get" Mattisse, or that we want Mattisse driven away). The material presented, the significant number of endorsements, the outside views presented, and so forth, by and large validate the thesis of this RfC... there is a problem, and something needs to change. At this point, it's really up to Mattisse what happens next, but I support closing this, and leaving matters rest for a month to see what that will be. If at that time matters have not improved, something else may need to be done. ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I hope that after a cool-down period Mattisse is willing to modify some of her behavior; if not, I hope she understands that the behavior is not likely to be tolerated. Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per everyone else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (per Malleus, naturally). Geometry guy 20:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please not yet - I really think Mattisse should be given the chance to respond to who would be someone they can trust enough to work as a pseudo mentor. Nothing official, but someone who will discuss matters with them, talk about issues, be someone to vent to, and help ensure that matters are dealt with in an appropriate and efficient manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That could happen whether or not the RfC was closed, though, no? ++Lar: t/c 02:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, but it seems a little off before any of the proposed remedies really go through. It would just have the appearance that this was blowing steam without having any realistic changes. I really think Mattisse could benefit from being placed in a situation in which they consult with another on issues that they feel are directly important, which will cause them to react slower, with a clearer mind, and be able to focus at the heart of the issues. I think speed is one of the worse enemies to the community as a whole, especially when speed causes higher levels of stress, which in turn ignites tension. I would really like Mattisse to provide some names of individuals that they are willing to trust enough to listen to their advice on issues in a pseudo mentorship type of fashion. I think it will do everyone involved a great benefit (especially Mattisse). Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand your point, but RfCs aren't binding. Even if 100 people supported the proposed motion for Mattisse to have a mentor, we could not force one on her. It is her choice, whether we close the RfC now or keep it open longer, as to whether she is willing to work with someone else (or even understand why others think she ought to work with someone else). Karanacs (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the next step?

As indicated above, I urge for no further action to be taken on this matter for a minimum of a month. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to read the future; in theory, this is a good plan, and I understand the reasoning, but if the behaviors continue, waiting a month to address them will not benefit the content review processes or editors that are being affected. Hopefully, that will be a moot concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is disruption taking place, it'll have to be dealt with, grim-faced. But my reading of Mattisse's comments is that she wishes to play no further part in the Featured processes. But there's a lot of text to be read - I might have misunderstood. But I will note, further, that none of the prescribed templates of outcomes refer to a desired outcome of cessation of the kind of disruption you refer to. Is that an omission? If so, could it wait for (hopefully) things to die down or (worst case) an Arbcom? --Dweller (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with RFCs (and no independent editor seems to be keeping this on track, so I'm unsure how it's supposed to work). I don't know if the items listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3#Desired outcome need to be translated to Templates, or if the number of editors endorsing them covers that. The failure to AGF, substantiate allegations with evidence or diffs, and disparaging remarks towards processes and other editors should not be allowed to continue for a month; again, hopefully that will become moot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general "civility" blocks don't work. I expect this would be no exception. But while supporting the idea of letting this lie fallow for a month in general, if there is egregious disruptive behaviour, that warnings and admonishments at the time don't curb, then blocks for disruption may be required. That needs to be dealt with as and if it comes up, and I'd rather hope for the best, hope that even if Mattisse won't directly acknowledge the need for change, that this has been a wakeup call, and there will be a change. I don't want an apology, I don't want sackcloth and ashes... I want collegial behaviour, I want an end to people feeling they can't participate in processes if Mattisse is there. The community deserves no less. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting templates

I have given names to the "Proposed solutions" templates. When you suggest a solution, you are supposed to give it a unique name. Also, please note that RfCs are not limited to three proposals; anyone can add another at any time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Outside view by SandyGeorgia

I'm not sure why no one has assured that RFC/U instructions have been adhered to on this RFC (not singling out Mattisse, as almost no one has): moved this here from my section. Mattisse may add it to her own section, or I can answer here, either is fine, but individual outside views are not for disucssion, only for endorsement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse_3#Outside_view_by_SandyGeorgia to here. These are the issues raised by Sandy. I posted my questions under her list. My questions are taken exclusively from her list of my failings. I am asking because I do not understand all of her points.

--Outside view by SandyGeorgia--

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse_3#Outside_view_by_SandyGeorgia to here. Mattisse (Talk) 21:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 [5]), "... 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."
[6] "people are seeking to drive me away from FAC" [7] "The intent is to drive me off and they will succeed."
[8] "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."
[9] Refers to Mike Christie as "Mikey".
[10] "Typo log" on a recently passed FA.
[11] "There is no reason for her to focus on me, yet she has because I did not do her bidding once."
[12] "You are a regular poster on Sandys talk page, my measure that you are a danger to me." [13] "Part of the posse, are you. ... The secret forces." [14] "Obviously a FAC fav that you get praised to the hilts for that little edit."
[15] 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.[16]

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

A few questions from Mattisse
Is it totally wrong to express one's opinion, when it is stated as an opinion? If so, please let me know that is the case. When I see others doing the same, i.e. stating opinions without diffs, is it ok if I note that they are doing such? For example, Malleus frequently refers to "block-happy admins". You are saying that this is wrong and he should use names rather than that global phrase?
Why is is wrong to call Mike Christie "Mikey"? I ofter see shortcut or diminutive names used by others. Why is this one wrong? Is is wrong to call SandyGeorgia "Sandy"?
Does SandyGeorgia have a typo log for others, besides me? If so, where is it so I can compare how I stand?
How is it wrong to ask an Admin candidate in an RFA if he intends to be transparent or if he will conduct business by email?
Why is is wrong to say someone uses material from my archive, when that person does? (She has referred twice to the same archive link so far in this RFC.)
Why is it wrong to say Sandy makes disparaging remarks about GAN when she does? (I need a diff collection which I will start, I guess.) Why can I not do the same for FAC if she can for GA?
I believe this RFC is an attempt to drive me away from FAC, so why is it wrong to express that?
I do not know why Sandy turned on me, other than I did not give the opinion she wanted when she asked me to participate in an FAC.
Why is it wrong to note that OrangeMarlin is a frequent poster on Sandy's page and that therefore I consider him a danger? I should keep a record, you are saying, of posts to Sandy's page and her comments elsewhere? Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are (for whatever reason) missing the bigger points. I thought it was pretty clear what was ok and not ok behaviour. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I am dense. I really would appreciate answers to these questions so that I may more clearly understand. I know that I am not to mention SandyGeorgia ever again and that I can not have opinions or ideas regarding FAC. However, some of these finer points listed above I do not understand, as I see others doing these things all the time with no reproach. Are they wrong also? Or is it only me or what? Warmest Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep everything article-focussed. Don't make assumptions on the conduct of others (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks), unless you have clear evidence. I will repeat, many of the points you made at the MDD were very valid and improved the article greatly. However, you began the acrimony and then repeatedly lying about me starting it, and then blanking my request and my timeline for you to clarify, is a good example of what not to do. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a difference in opinion. I am quite sorry and appoligize that this is the case. I may not always be accurate, but I do not "lie". Further, I did not blank your request and timeline; it is in my archives if you want to look. I am sorry you misunderstood. I was working too hard on that article. I should have just left it alone. Unfortunately, when it is something in my field I want it to be correct. Also, there was so much refactoring, interruptions of threads, moving of comments to different pages, irrelevant post changing the subject directly beneath my questions/comments etc. that I lost the ability to follow what was happening. Further, I consider your comments to me an escalation on the MDD article and a personal attack by you on me. [17] I was very surprised and hurt that you would make such personally demeaning remarks to me. Generally, I was treated poorly there and my contributions disparaged. SnowmanRadio tried to point out to Cosmic Latte how hurtful and demeaning his edit summaryies to me were in Cosmic Latte's editorial review. It is only with this RFC that any acknowledgment that I have contributed in a very major way to that article has been acknowledged publicly. SnowmanRadio has always been very kind as he was in the trenches with me in that article. Warmest Cheers! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I wish you would answer my questions above, as it seems to me others do these things and it is O.K. I want to be clear as to what the standards are. Warmest Cheers! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to answer your questions with my own opinion about what the answers are:

"Is it totally wrong to express one's opinion, when it is stated as an opinion?" Sometimes it's OK and sometimes it isn't. It can help to insert phrases like "in my opinion" into your sentences. It may be OK to say "In my opinion, user X has been doing too many reverts on this page." It's almost certainly not OK to say, for example, "In my opinion, user X is not intelligent enough to edit this article." (not that you said that; I just made that up as an example.)
"When I see others doing the same, i.e. stating opinions without diffs, is it ok if I note that they are doing such? For example, Malleus frequently refers to "block-happy admins"." If Malleus' comment is clearly not about any specific editors, then diffs may not be required. If someone makes a statement you disagree with about a specific editor, I think it's reasonable to ask them for diffs. If they state clearly that the statement is their opinion, e.g. "In my opinion, user X ...", then I'm not sure that they necessarily have to supply diffs, but I guess it can't hurt to ask for diffs. No two situations are identical, so when you see someone doing something that you consider to be "the same", others might see important distinctions.
"Why is is wrong to call Mike Christie "Mikey"? I ofter see shortcut or diminutive names used by others. Why is this one wrong? Is is wrong to call SandyGeorgia "Sandy"?" I don't know about those specific people, but in general I would say that it's OK to call someone a name if that person likes or agrees to the use of the name or if you're pretty sure they won't mind. If the person expresses dislike for a name then I think it's probably uncivil to continue to call them that. Sometimes the use of a nickname, depending on the general tone of the rest of the comment, might come across as having a condescending or sarcastic tone, therefore it may be better to avoid using a nickname for the first time when making more confrontational statements.
"How is it wrong to ask an Admin candidate in an RFA if he intends to be transparent or if he will conduct business by email?" If you provide a diff of someone criticizing you for that, I might be able to answer the question. SandyGeorgia's comment above is not about asking an admin candidate whether they intend to be transparent or will conduct business by email; it's about you saying "Talk of the plethora of email they all send to each other, to maintain their ingroup agenda without the transparency of posting", which is different: that's a criticism of specific editors, not an RfA question.
"Why is is wrong to say someone uses material from my archive, when that person does?" I don't think that's the issue. When quotes about your archive were mentioned, I think there were other problems.
"suggests to Jennavecia that she block me based on material in my archives": I would think the problem here would be something to do with blocking, rather than something to do with archives. I'm guessing that the problem is that when you said "and suggests to Jennavecia that she block me", you did not supply a diff that supported that statement, as far as I can see; the diff you provided doesn't contain the word "block", for example.
"SandyGeorgia has apparently relayed my private note from my archive to favorite User:GrahamColm, who is consequently so upset." Again, I'm guessing the (perceived) problem is probably not about archives, but about something else, perhaps about blaming SandyGeorgia for causing someone to be upset. While you can request that material you post to Wikipedia be treated as private, and I would hope that people would comply with such requests when reasonable, it's best to assume that anything posted to Wikipedia is public. People may not know which things you consider private, and they may have reasons to choose not to comply with your request, such as having different values about freedom of information and privacy. I suggest using email for things you would prefer to keep private, or just accepting that anything posted anywhere on Wikipedia is public.
"Why is it wrong to say Sandy makes disparaging remarks about GAN when she does? (I need a diff collection which I will start, I guess.) Why can I not do the same for FAC if she can for GA?" I suggest that you need to wait until you have a diff before you say something like that. I prefer to avoid adjectives such as "disparaging" or any adjective at all when criticizing an editor or their edits. I think it's better to just quote them. Then nobody can disagree with what you're saying. For example, you can say "Sandy said the following about GAN", then put a quote and a diff that contains the quote. Adjectives are not forbidden but are more likely to get people upset. Among adjectives, "disparaging" is not very bad; "critical" or "negative" may be preferable as having, in my opinion, a more neutral tone. I think the main problem is saying something like that without a diff.
"I believe this RFC is an attempt to drive me away from FAC, so why is it wrong to express that?" It violates the WP:AGF guideline. If you're not able to actually assume good faith on the part of other editors, in cases where there is no strong enough evidence of bad faith to convince the majority of uninvolved Wikipedians, I suggest keeping your suspicions to yourself and commenting as if you are assuming good faith. Alternatively, I think you can express it as a question rather than a statement, phrasing it apologetically to try to make it clear that you really want an answer rather than it being a rhetorical question, (it can be difficult to get that across!), then try hard to assume good faith when reading the answers. If, however, as is likely, it's interpreted as a rhetorical question, people will think you're violating WP:AGF.
"I do not know why Sandy turned on me, other than I did not give the opinion she wanted when she asked me to participate in an FAC." Please give a diff where Sandy "turned on [you]", and if I have time I'll look at the history coming up to it and try to answer this question.
"Why is it wrong to note that OrangeMarlin is a frequent poster on Sandy's page and that therefore I consider him a danger? I should keep a record, you are saying, of posts to Sandy's page and her comments elsewhere?" Users have the right to post to each others' pages and to post frequently to particular users' pages. Jumping to the conclusion based on that that OM is a "danger" seems to me to violate WP:AGF.

Please note what Casliber calls "the bigger points": the general pattern is that people are asking you to assume good faith and to avoid making unsupported or inaccurate statements. Before posting a comment, you can use the "preview" button, try to see things from other people's POV, and ask yourself whether anyone is likely to interpret your comment as not assuming good faith or as being unsupported or inaccurate.

I hope these answers are helpful. They're my opinion; they may not be perfect; they're open to discussion. I think I left out one question because I didn't have an answer. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 16:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, to add to my answer to the first question above, and in response to this comment: if you say "in my opinion" or "it appears that" (or something similar) and follow that with a description of someone violating a policy or doing something bad, then you need to provide diffs, just as you would need to provide diffs if you left off the "in my opinion" part. Saying "in my opinion" can be helpful in other ways, but it doesn't necessarily remove the need to provide diffs. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final note to Mattisse (probably for good)

First, I am not an admin, so this is not a threat. However, if you continue on the path you're currently on, antagonizing good editors, playing at not knowing what you've done wrong, and the like, you will most likely end up blocked. NPA is policy for a reason. As Lar points out, we need at least a collegial work environment here. What you have done in the past--and are doing now--does not lead to that outcome. Please stop, as the current track you're taking will most likely not end happily. SDJ 02:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mentorship.... perhaps unneccessary?

Hear me out on this one. I know several folks are pissed at Matisse, and they may have legitimate reasons for being so. I know Matisse is pissed at several folks, and s/he may have legitimate reasons for being so. But Matisse's situation can be made far, far more salubrious with One Simple Rule:

No Throwing Poo

No, seriously. I really mean it. There are two problems here: An immediate, external one, and a long-term, internal one. Take them one at a time, and deal with the ones that are susceptible to straightforward, quick change:

The underlying problem is an unhealthy (for all) dynamic in which Matisse rapidly loses trust in folks after some incident or other (I won't delve into the nature of those incidents). In fact, more than losing trust, s/he moves into active, sometimes acrimonious distrust.
The more tangible problem is how this plays out: S/he begins throwing poo. Not just any poo, but powerful, stinky poo.

The first problem is a long-term one. It is so hard to move from a position of distrust to one of trust (or tolerance, in some cases; active trust is not always needed, and sometimes benevolent tolerance is enough). It takes a long and sometimes difficult process of inner dialog monitoring ("no, my thoughts are not inline with reality—they are not really, really focusing on me, singling me out, etc. They are just being insensitive or stupid or something or other"). This is a life-change, and life-changes almost always take months or years.

The second problem is simply behavioral. It is susceptible to quick, conscious self-monitoring. And the neat thing is, it makes everyone happy. Win-win.

SO the answer to this long discussion is that two things are needed, but one visible behavioral shift is enough for the short-term and even the intermediate term. No throwing poo. Three simple words. And while you are not throwing poo, work on those trust issues. Learn that fewer folks are untrustworthy than may seem true at first glance, and that for those folks who actually are untrustworthy, merely ignoring them is usually enough. Doing more than that is a huge expenditure of physical and especially emotional energy, and that expenditure is both emotionally exhausting and in fact unnecessary. When you throw poo (and don't work on those trust issues), you make everyone dirty, smelly and unhappy including yourself.

That's all. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That smells... like a potential essay to me. Well said. endorse ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ling.Nut. I will follow your advice. In fact, I know now that you are right; from the kind advice offered me in this RFC, it is clear I was not thinking accurately in so quickly assuming distrust. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An observation

This is the only RfC I can recall which features reproduced barnstars. Would it not be sufficient to mention that one got some, if that? If someone ever started an RfC about me, I'm not sure I'd even mention the ones I've received. Barnstars are "attaboys" (or "attagirls") not get out of jail free cards. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that it looks so pathetic to you, Lar, that I try to cling to some shred of belief that perhaps I have contributed to wikipedia and that so many persons have noted my contributions. Since my words have been ignored, I thought the graphic "attaboys" barnstars would speak for me. The barnstars are specifically those I received for work on the articles on which the RFC accuses me of being disruptive. Do you have a better suggestion? How would you defend yourself against charges of racism? If I received 5 "attaboys" for copyediting the articles for the editor to whom I was accused of making racist comments, do you think that accusation carries much weight.

If I were a higher up person like you, perhaps I would want to look down and demean someone like me also, and ridicule their attempts to defend themselves. It is still astounding that you, who I know nothing about, have gotten so involved in my behavior and belittle my accomplishments. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS What is so interesting about me, that you are even following this and feel you have to take the time to give me an extra put down, Lar? —Mattisse (Talk) 13:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this section (under "An observation") be moved to the talk page? Snowman (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and now moved. Geometry guy 19:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, it might not have been clear to you (and other people), but the primary reason that RFC/U's are handled 'out in public' is so that users that you know nothing about, and that know nothing about you, can review your contributions. Outside views -- which necessarily come from unbiased people, because they don't know you -- are exactly what's wanted to keep this process from being "you versus all the people already mad at you", and outside views are hard to come by, because it takes a lot of work to review hundreds and thousands of contributions. Please do not discourage the contributions of impartial editors. If Lar has gone to the trouble of looking at your edit history, then he or she is permitted to voice an opinion about it. It is not necessary for Lar to first work with you, or to first be mad at you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, are we still here?

I haven't read the text of what's going on, but I keep seeing disparaging edit summaries. Are we still here? If so, then why? Haven't we figured out that the only thing likely to happen here is mutual sniping? I said it before: Mattisse, stop talking bad about people. It helps you not even one whit. In fact it hurts your reputation considerably, and hurts the general morale. If you don't like people, then ignore them. A few of them may be actual WP:DICKs, but most are just acting in the normal irascible Wikipedia manner. If you have been the target of crankiness, that does not make you special in any way... Three-fourths of the folks I interact with are the target of my crankiness. I am quite frequently coasting in Cranky Mode, and others receive the brunt of my crankiness. Yet I do not believe I am evil and know for a fact that I am not involved in any conspiracies against anyone. And I am a good example of... everyone else. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wonder why all these important wikipedia admins, arbcom members, assorted others must continue to belittle me. I would think they could find something else to do. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It continues because you continue talking about it. I'm telling you, I have been in several arguments. I am fairly sure there are a small handful of people on Wikipedia who have varying degrees of disrespect and/or dislike for me. I've seen (a long time ago) disparaging and moderately insulting small-group conversations on peoples' talk pages that were, to a high degree of probability, about me and perhaps one or two others who were on my side in various arguments. And you know what I did? Nothing, not really. I b*tched and moaned via email to one or two friends, perhaps once or twice. Then I dropped it. I never posted anything on my talk, or theirs. I never went around poking the wound, trying to establish myself as the one who was right, saying stuff here and stuff there about those people. I never tried to... show myself or show them or show anyone at all that those other people were just plain wrong for saying my name with disrespect. I just let it go. I even (a long time after the beefs) made an attempt to make peace... not that I needed to, and not that you have to. Really, my attempts at peace-making have had about a 50% success rate. But peace-making is the secondary response, not the primary one. It is secondary chronologically (often) and secondary in terms of importance (always). The primary response is to do nothing; to stop the negative interaction. Disarm. Disengage. De-escalate. And you know what? Those people who dislike(d) me now never even mention my name. You know why? Because I have no contact with them. They are not involved in my life, and I am not involved in theirs. Another thing—a crucial reason why they have no negative dealings with me—is because the original arguments were trivial. At the time they seemed huge to me and to them, but time lends perspective. I see those arguments as trivial, and I suspect other folks do as well. But if you keep poking at folks whom you've had arguments with, then the poking becomes the problem... even though the orginal arguments were trivial, the poking becomes a real issue, if it continues. The original arguments are forgotten, or at least their importance fades to obscurity, and the ongoing barbs become a very real problem. The original beef was just a bump in the road, but the ongoing calumny is cancer. Why are people focusing on you? Because human beings focus on a source of discomfort, and ongoing disparaging remarks are an ongoing source of discomfort. Am I saying that the folks you are unhappy with are angelic innocents, and you are in the wrong? No, no way. There are always two sides to every argument, and both sides always contain some right and some wrong. What I am saying is that you are not taking the correct steps to make the problem fade away, but instead are being fairly successful at making the problem much worse. Am I pointing fingers at you? No, not really. I'm just telling you what I see. It may or may not help, but I hope it does. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 18:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's close this this time

OK, we're going round in circles and I can't see anything else to gain. Any future behaviour can be judged at the time on its merits (or otherwise). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this product or service... er, I mean, yes please. Nothing more can be gained here, failing a change in circumstance. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valediction

Generally speaking, I think that a valediction (expression used to say farewell) should be chosen according the the circumstances of the communication. I think that the choosing an appropriate valediction shows that an individual has duly considered how to end the communication. I think that some valedictions may sound incongruous when used inappropriately; for example, I think that saying "tar tar for now" might be too jovial for a valediction to a serious conversation. Snowman (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, I can't see what this is in relation to, can you please clarify? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, upon reading it again, if you mean the "cheers" bit, I was asked (appropraitely) to remove it on arb debates, so I did, but ended up removing it quite a bit, so removed from my sig. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a general point for discussion, which was not directly relating to anyone's valedictions in particular. Nevertheless, with regards to your former favourite valediction, I am glad you have changed it, and I think that your new signature is a lot better. Snowman (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Chat

Nearly everything under Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse_3#Desist_accusations_against_Mattisse is discussion and should be moved to this page instead of being present on the RFC/U page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you might be right there...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved section per above

Here you go again - where is your evidence I consider Major depressive disorder to be mine? I instituted most of your recommendations and explained why I didn't institute others, what more do you want? Can you not see your problem here? I am happy to not make any further comments unless I come across you making accusations without basis. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting that as a potential motivation for your bringing this RFC against me. I did not state that as a fact, as I cannot know your motivations. Other than my attempts to improve that article, and our resulting interacting on the FAC page and my talk page, you and I have had almost no contact, except for my question to you whether "Cheers" was an appropriate signature to Arbcom statements. I offer as evidence the personal attack with diffs above on the FAC page (moved by SandyGeorgia to the FAC talk page), as well as the fact that you took the time while you were running for Arbcom to assemble this enormous RFC against me. Also, your copying my joking comment to you on my talk page on a public FAC talk page, so that I was threatened with a block and had to take my complaint to AN/I to get vindicated. If I am wrong, then why did you get so upset? What have I ever done to you to warrant this effort on your part to harm me? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the impression that other editors don't support these allegations against you. Instead, other editors (including me) have stated that the points are valid and you shouldn't overreact, asking to be banned and making yourself to be a victim of persecution. I don't get the impression anyone is making you out to be a horrible person, and it appears your contributions to the project are valued. Several editors have asked you to take these suggestions positively. Invalidating that would not be a good idea, I think. --Moni3 (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You are free to disagree. But remember, I have shepparded many articles through FAC, I have written many articles, 75% of my edits are in the article namespace. Of all the bad behavior I was accused of, only one editor involved in those "disputes" commented negatively about me, other than, of course, SandyGeorgia and Casliber. And of the people Casliber contacted to comment against me because of past behavior , only one made a negative comment about me. And regarding the one editor that did comment negativity , I have received 5 Barnstars, at least a couple from him personally, for getting three of his articles through FAC. Plus a defense specifically from another editor on the charges regarding him on this page. See Outside view by Fowler&Fowler. The negative comments in this RFC came from a group of editors who I see posting frequently on SandyGeorgia's talk page. The rest made positive comments about me. Leaving you out, none of those negative comments came from editors with actual experience with me. I would expect you to comment negatively. Outside commentators who actually went through the diffs had positive comments, like Durova. Aside from a few that I would have expected to follow along, I received many positive comments. Awadewit who supported my position and made comments on the FARs for Augustan literature and Augustan drama, (one of SandyGeorgia's charges against me were those FARs) did not comment. So FAC editors with whom I have had significant interactions with did not participate in this. So actually, I felt much warm support from this RFC. As I said, you are free to think whatever you want. Please, feel free to continue the accusations. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse how should I interpret..."Casliber 's allegations are mostly over one FAC article Major depressive disorder, which he appears to consider his"...seems pretty "factual" to me. My personal motivations were your behaviour at initiating and continuing hositilities in the mdd fac, and afterwards proposing that I had initiated hostility there, and it soon became apparent that this sort of behaviour on your part was more widespread. Granted it is not all the time and you have alot to offer, but you have refused to listen to attempts to discuss this before now. Hence the RfC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say to you, Casliber, feel free to enter diffs of bad interactions I have had with you, other than over the MDD article, my question about your use of "Cheers" as a signature as an arbitrator, and your attempt to have me blocked. (Nothing from May 2006, just interactions with you that you can vouch for the reality of the complaints and for which you know the complete context.) —Mattisse (Talk) 04:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Casliber, do you know the difference between "appears" (i.e. seems to me, I perceive etc.) and fact? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right (nods in an exaggerated fashion) I guess that makes it ok then. I can slot in words like that and make whatever comments I like without substantiation. I have given pletny of diffs above of problems with your conduct above, I see no need to provide anything else. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humm (shakes head in an exaggerated fashion) - I actually thought you were a psychiatrist and knew the difference. No? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you are saying that if you use "appears" you can make any comment you like without providing evidence for your observation. Yes or no. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, I did believe you were a psychiatrist, so I assumed (obviously wrongly) that you knew the difference between someone expressing an subjective point of view (a perception) and "fact." I was wrong. I apologize and am sorry that I assumed such. Therefore I retract anything that expresses my point of view, being as that is wrong - as Casliber has decreed. I expect everyone else to do the same. I am sorry that the "Cheers" thing ended up such a sore point for you, as evidenced by your ridiculing my question (by posting a vote that was overwhelminly in your favor, but then the subsequent act by by you, Casliber, of the removal of "Cheers" from your votes on arbcom statements.) —Mattisse (Talk) 05:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Don't change the subject. Answer the question. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go again Casliber. Don't you change the subject. That I said "he appears to consider his" is worthy of degree of deep upset on your part now? Please list accusations against me regarding my misbehavior toward you personally (not snippets of accusing diffs taken out of context) that do no involve the MDD article, my question to you when you were running for arbcom whether your use of "Cheers" as a signature as a arbitrator to ArbCom statements, or your attempt to get me blocked. Snowmanradio supported my behavior during the FAC for MDD in this RFC One of the editors you contacted to comment in this RFC actually read through you allegations regarding my behavior on the FAC for MDD and instead of making a negative comment, gave me the following:

--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]

Perhaps such statements as yours from above re the MDD article gives me that "appearance ("he appears to consider his"): I instituted most of your recommendations and explained why I didn't institute others, what more do you want? You did not "instituted most of your recommendations" - I instituted them, as witness the 365 edits I made to the article when it was at FAC.[18] Mostly, you ignored my questions and comments. That is why I actually had to make the changes myself in the article. Perhaps that sort of comment and attitude gives the appearance to me that you seemed to me to have the attitude that it was "your" article. I apologize that I instituted the changes myself. Is that what angered you so against me, provoking your attacks on me, and your harassing post on my talk page?

It is very disappointing that you, an arbitrator whom I would think would try to set a higher standard, persist in the need to continue to accuse me. If you are this upset over the phrase "he appears to consider his", in my response to Moni3's support of the accusations that I am a racist and others such accusations, then please start another RFC. It is hard to fathom why you are so resentful of my participation in the MDD article.

I am deeply disappointed that you and Moni3 choose to continue the accusations against me, such as racism. I urge both of you to read through the evidence carefully. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Moni3, why do you continued to think such allegations as those accusing me of making racist comments are valid? —Mattisse (Talk) 12:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is very disappointing; I was sorta hopeful we'd accomplished something here that would be useful for everyone involved, but it looks like we're back at square one. Mattisse, a number of editors who had serious concerns about your behavior went out of their way to be constructive and positive in hopes you'd take their concerns seriously. Instead, you've interpreted that olive branch to mean that no one has a problem with your conduct except Casliber and SandyGeorgia.

Here's the problem in one sentence. You are incredibly thin-skinned and sensitive to the slightest perceived affront when it's directed at you, but you simultaneously miss no opportunity to take snide, hurtful potshots at your long list of "enemies". Someone once said that the Internet is populated by eggshells armed with sledgehammers. In this RfC, people are asking that you put down the sledgehammer. I'm sorry to be blunt; I tried a somewhat gentler approach, and you indicated you'd take it to heart. At the time, I wasn't sure if you were sincere or simply blowing me off. I have a clearer idea now. Hence the blunter reformulation. MastCell ^Talk 06:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel if, for example, in a hostile, confrontational RFC, you were accused of such behavior as racism? Did you read any of my responses? (eg See by Mattisse to SandyGeorgia re accusations of racism and India). Did you read carefully through the allegations against me? Those that did, such as Durova and SilkTork supported me. You have not been bashed by this ugly RFC, apparently largely the result of my contributions to the Major depressive disorder's FAC (to which I contributed 365 edits during the FAC because my suggestions were ignored so I had to do it myself).[19] The wonderful part for me is that I received so much positive support and friendly offers from so many editors responding to this RFC. What is your personal experience with me that you feel I need such a nasty RFC? —Mattisse (Talk) 12:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This - "Mostly, you ignored my questions and comments." - is untrue. And again, you haven't answered the question on whether it is okay to make observations (as you call them) without evidence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did I have to make 365 edits to the Major depressive disorder in order to correct mistakes and inaccurate and unreliably sourced material that were not addressed or corrected through my comments on the FAR? Why did you and and others argue with me on my talk page rather than just addressing the article issues? What are your complaints about me (based on personal experience and not the claims of others - such as the ridiculous ALL CAPS accusation, the racism accusation, my alleged sock puppets, the edit made in May 2006 etc. etc. ) other than the MDD, the question about the "Cheers" signature, and your attempt to get me blocked for a fallacious personal attack? —Mattisse (Talk) 14:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have to do anything; my total edit count on that article has ended up at over 900 - I can't calculate how many I made exactly but would not be surprised if it hit 400 or so. People started to comment on your talk page when you became acrimonious (as I have explained before a few times now). I also didn't "try to get you blocked". I can't see this going anywhere. OK, let's just close this RfC now as we are going around in circles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, here is the edit count for the exact period of time this article was FAC:10-19-2008 to 12-06-2008[20] You had 369 and I had 301. But I understand your feelings with over 918 total edits in the article.[21] —Mattisse (Talk) 00:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also disappointed by this new thread. After several days of silence, Fowler&Fowler contributed a perfectly reasonable outside point of view. There was no reason for this to reignite the whole RfC. Ling has made some pertinent comments on the talk page. Geometry guy 19:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close this circus now

A month ago, I observed that this RfC was unhelpful. Its very existence is perpetuating drama. All I see since then is bad. Can it now be closed firmly shut? Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it cannot. the whole purpose of keeping it open was so that all those interested had the opprtunity to comment - as in "request for commment." Mattisse's edits in mainspace are unnaceptable and will not be tolerated. She clearly has no intention of changing her ways voluntarily, so other methods muct if necessary be used. Enoughs enough, and her stalking edits and persecutions of other editors will now halt. Giano (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giano. As I understood it, the RfC was kept open to give a chance to find a mentor. As this has not happened and Mattisse continues to deny the very basis of the RfC, an RfC is no longer really appropriate. As before, I strongly recommend we close the RfC and if users continue to find Mattisse's editing objectionable, the next step, sadly, would be an ArbCom case. We're not achieving anything here, other than perversely to make the chances of the most desirable outcome (everyone happy and contributing positively) less likely. --Dweller (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mattisse is certainly making no effort to reform, and is anow a major detriment to the project, I suppose the only option is to permanently ban her, I see no other choice. She cannot be allowed to continue in this fashion damaging content. Giano (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right, I've not been following recent developments, but either way that's not going to be achieved here. --Dweller (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only see an isolated clash of personalities and opinions over the Buckingham Palace article. Geometry guy 17:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this RfC is simply intensifying drama, and it should be closed. A motion to close above received nearly unanimous support almost a month ago and I'm surprised no one took the initiative to close it in the interim (the RfC fell silent on 17 January). For what it is worth, I have noticed a marked improvement in Mattisse's behaviour and she has been seeking advice from other wikipedians on a number of occasions. Bringing a talk page and FAR dispute to this RfC is unhelpful. Geometry guy 17:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I only see an isolated clash of personalities and opinions over the Buckingham Palace article." Either you have not bothered to read the RFC, you are trolling, or blind - which? Giano (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the period from 17 January until now. I have actively participated in this RfC and have most certainly read it. I checked your diffs and found they all referred to this article. One of them was even a diff to your own RfC post, which I found a bit odd. You are welcome to apologise on my talk page for questioning my eyesight and good faith within a few seconds of me making this post, and without bothering to check that I have a reputation neither for trolling, nor blindness. Up to you. Geometry guy 17:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I certainly won't appolagise - you jumped on a bandwagon, if your ankle is broken jumping off, then that is your own fault. Giano (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Mattisse has been alot more constructive after the initial discussion here, which was great, but understanding FAR, I do feel the nomination there was POINTy unfortunately.

PS: In any case these things are supposed to stay open a month, which hasn't yet passed, so that is one prerequisite coming up in a few days. Yes, a mentor would be a plus, but that is not automatically entwined to this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction RfC/U discussions stay open for as long as they are useful. If that's three days or three hundred, the RfC process doesn't care. The 30-day rule applies only to automatically listed RfCs in other namespaces, and even there it's not mandatory: it's simply when the bot assumes that the RfC is probably stale and removes the RfC notice from the centralized lists. Those, too, can be shortened or extended as desired (by manually changing the timestamp or removing the RfC template from the talk page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had been engaged in a dialogue with Mattisse in a subpage of my userspace. I was starting to get to know her, and felt I was making good progress. She had been growing in confidence, and had cautiously welcomed an invite from Sandy to continuing working in FAC. I didn't know she intended to work on the Buck House article as we hadn't discussed that. She did however make me aware of Giano's comments in this RFC. She was alarmed and upset and wondering what to do. My sugestion was to ignore Giano's comments, and to walk away from conflict. She said that's what she would do. In the process of our conversation I gave her my personal opinion of Giano. This was a personal conversation in a hidden subpage of my user-space. I accept that given my role in providing support for Mattisse, and given Giano's inclination toward drama, it was in retrospect an unwise thing to do. However I didn't expect Giano to read it. But he did and left a comment in there. Clearly having done that, the space I had created had been violated, and a lot of good work has now been undone. I have deleted the page as the conversation was personal to myself and Mattisse. I will hopefully be able to continue my dialogue with Mattisse via email, but it may be a while before trust can be built up again. It seems a shame that a big drama has been created here. I am a part of that, and I apologise for my contribution. However, let's move on. I would like to see this RFC closed so as not to escalate matters any further. What productive work can be done is being done, and it's being done away from here. More negative comments will only further undo that productive work. SilkTork *^YES! 15:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with closing this RfC and have said so above. Nevertheless I'm struck by the apparent incompatibility of your comments with this position on overt communication between editors recently expounded by Mattisse.[22] Mattisse is clearly not listening, so this RfC can serve no further purpose. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment, Malleus. The conversational between Silk Tork and me was about my privite feelings and hurt as we were trying to develop a mentoring relationship, and had nothing to do with the long term editing a specific wikipedia pages. My comments toward Redthoreau had to do with the covert collusion between him and Coppertwig on strategies to control the content of the specific Che Guevara page and related Che pages. I was requesting that such comments and coaching about controlling the page content should take place transparently on the article talk page, where all editors of the page could understand the plans. It had nothing to do with a private chat room. The situations are not at all the same. I urge you to examine the differences. Silk Tork and I were trying to built up my confidence that I would not be betrayed by him and could talk honestly about my concerns so that he could help me in general. Coppertwig and Redthoreau's interactions specifically revolve around how to control the POV on Che Guevara. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I will add that Coppertwig initiated these conversations in an invitation to me to edit the Che Guevara page, and setting forth his conditions if I wanted to edit the Che Guevara page again, namely going throug him. My posting were in response to this, explaining why I did not feel comfortable doing so, given the covert control of the page by the Coppertwig in helping Redthoreau, control the POV that is neither disclosed on the article talk page nor disclosed to other editors of the page. However, I know you will never see me in a favorable light, so I will try to stop explaining myself. I am trying to accommodate you by no longer copy editing or reviewing at FAC. I will no longer nominate FACR. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for resolutuion of RFC

I will hereby vow never to copy edit an FAC article again nor review an FAC article. (I may copy edit an article in which I have been a major contributor, but SandyGeorgia is free to list all my typos if I do, and I will accept the typo list with good grace and attempt to fix them. However, I expect to do almost no FAC copy editing, even under these circumstances. I will try to minimize my contributions in any article that seems to be heading for FAC.) I will nominate no more FACRs. I will have no more contact with SandyGeorgia, Caslibers, Karanacs, Malleus, Moni3 and other of the FAC group who entered complaints on my RFC. I will not post on the FAC talk page. I will confine my work to the areas of Wikipedia where my work is appreciated by editors. The RFC succeed in that I am no longer involved in FAC at any level. Hopefully, this will halt this problem. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to continue my mentoring relationship with Silk Tork. We would both prefer to do it on Wiki, as I for one, do not like the plethora of private email communications between certain regulars. I think he prefers on wiki also, in the trust and hope that those stalking me will stop. Silk Tork assured me that no one would follow me to the chat, be he has not had the experiences I had. Could those editors following me agree to allow me to be mentored by Silk Tork on wiki? We are not clever enough to hide, so we must depend on the good will of those who will allow us our chat in privacy. The RFC came out of the blue like a nitrogen bomb into my heart, and sour, and I will never recover from it and can never trust nor be involved again with the people behind it. I do not like none transparent and exclusionary means of communication that can organize and destroy another wikieditor in secret. Please allow me some dignity and contact with Silk Tork. That is all I can ask. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, those of us who posted do not want you to cut off all contact, nor to stop participating at FAC or FAR. We are just trying to give you pointers on how to do so in a more effective manner. Karanacs (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions on Mattisse being involved in FAC in any aspect in the future can be left for another time. For the moment she says she will not get involved in FAC, and that is a suitable closure on this RFC. Mattisse and I would both prefer to chat in a space on wiki. I will discuss this in private with Mattisse and create a new space. The space will not be intended for anyone else, and we would appreciate people respecting that and not making comments.

Let us close this RFC on the situation that Mattisse will not until discussions have taken place and circumstances have changed get involved in FAC. And people will not leave comments on whichever subpage I create in my userspace for Mattisse and I. SilkTork *^YES! 17:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can reasonably expect those who are unfairly villified in the course of your "private" conversations with Mattisse to sit idly by while they are being roundly abused. As a mentoring program that seems to leave a great deal to be desired. Unless and until Mattisse accepts that her behaviour and attitude have to change, no amounts of tea, sympathy, and cozy chats is going to have the slightest effect. The problem isn't "out there", and until that truth sinks home this problem isn't going to go away. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just one moment - that was not mentoring by any stretch of the imagination, that was two editors using Wikipedia to slag off anyone they did not like; Silk Tork has proved himself grossly unsuitable to be anyone's mentor and Mattisse can stop this little girl lost act right now because it is cutting no ice. Giano (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(tick....tick....tick....) - righto, it is now one calendar month since this RfC was opened today.

PS: @Silktork, no pages enwiki are private. If you do want to carry on communications, consider that anyone could read it at anytime, and that this holds true of any material written anywhere on the wiki. I would still advise that if one discusses frustrations or opinions with editor X, then that is best done privately via email. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns about this proposal for 'a private place to develop trust and confidence' between two people. I don't think that this is an appropriate use of Wikipedia's resources, and I firmly believe that psychotherapy should involve a licensed professional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No attack page, please

Pursuant to Casliber's comment, I cannot accept SilkTork's and Mattisse's insistence on keeping an attack page on the wiki. "Advising" about it is too weak; it's quite unacceptable, and extremely illogical. SilkTork has repeatedly apologized for things he has said on the special "Mattisse page" in his userspace so far; yet he insists on continuing in the same way. Doing my best to assume good faith, I would still like to be told why it is important to the two of them to have a special privilege for freely abusing other editors in public. (The Internet is public, you know, and once the targets know what's going on on your special page, they're going to go look. So would you, Mattisse. To call that looking "stalking," or a failure to "allow us our chat in privacy" is nonsense.) The reasons offered by Mattisse so far have been the purest demagogy: "I for one do not like the plethora of private email communications between certain regulars". Why would you have to like it? What does that have to do with you using e-mails in your "mentoring relationship"? " Or, "Please allow me some dignity": an argumentum ad misericordiam—the most prevalent kind of argument in this RfC—for a dignity that can only be realized by attacking others where they can see it—privately isn't good enough? And another appeal to pity: "We are not clever enough to hide". I do believe Mattisse and SilkTork are in fact clever enough to use e-mail for the purpose of communicating and venting. They both have the "E-mail this user" feature activated. And as for chatting in real time, another useful kind of venue, I personally taught Mattisse to use G-mail Talk, long ago. Please just take your comments about other people off the wiki, and you will be completely free to express what you think of those people, in peace, with dignity. What exactly is so hard? There's no pressing need to reply to my questions, but if you do reply, Mattisse, I hope you actually answer the questions, as asked. "I will not have anything to do with Bishonen for the next six years" would for example not be an answer. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It's a pity that you seem to find it difficult to be even-handed in your criticism, or even recognise the need for it. I see no warning on Giano's page for his personal attack on Mattisse, for instance. Or is it your view that two wrongs make a right? Unsigned post by Mattisse, 6 February 2009.

Suggestion two

I will never have any more contact ever with SandyGeorgia, Caslibers, Malleus Fatorum, or Moni3. for at least three years. (This is based on the first diff of indictment against me, which was dated May 2006, roughly three years ago.) Therefore, this is not these FAC editors saying I am recently unfit. They are saying I have never been fit, starting in May 2006 when I made my first edits.
I will never edit an FAC, comment on the FAC talk, comment on the FAC page, nor nominate or comment on FARCs again. It is clear from damaging ~~hatred~~ disparagement of my work, and the seeming attribution of malice to my work (however mistaken I might have been in my good faith work) in this RFC that it would be foolish for me to ever be involved in FAC, or FACR again.
I will continue my ~~mentoring~~ constructive relationship with Silk Tork by email (I do not have chat as my "ISP has chosen to block chat in Gmail"), hopefully in peace. What he and I say to each other in our attempts to allow me to established the trust so badly damaged here should be left to us to work out and need not concern others. None of our statements are meant for public dispersal. If other editors do not publish our private reaching out to each other, there should be no chance for misinterpretation or misuse of our conversation.
I believe there no community consensus that Silk Tork is a bad mentor, bad editor, or unfit community member.
I request no further hostile comments from SandyGeorgia, Caslibers, Malleus Fatorum, or Moni3. They have made their ~~hatred~~ disparagement of my work, and the seeming attribution of malice to my work (however mistaken I might have been in my good faith work) evident and further comment with not make this clearer. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Silk Tork is not a mentor, the now deleted User talk:SilkTork/Chat was not a mentoring page, it was Silk Tork agreeing with you that you are a wronged, hard done by little soul and everyone else is wicked and nasty - with a few insults thrown in, by both of you, for good measure. Please do not delude yourself that was mentoring - it wasn't. You cannot be allowed such a page, private conversations do not exist on the internet and to think otherwise is foolish. Your final point concerning SandyGeorgia, Casliber, Malleus Fatorum and Moni3 is surely rather dependent on you rather than them. Giano (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only comments that could be construed as anything approaching hatred here appear to be from you, Mattisse, and not from the other editors that you repeatedly accuse (with no proof) of awful things. This self-pitying attitude that blames everyone else for your troubles is not productive. I truly regret that you cannot accept the constructive criticism offered here as good-faith efforts to help you by people who respect you. Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, I rather take exception to this unwarranted bandying around of the word "hatred", It does not bode well for the future if this RfC is going to be closed on such a sour note. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again the throwing around of pretty controversial assumptions or accusations without evidence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

This RfC was certified on 4th Jan 2009. We have had an overwhelming consensus to close for some time now. We paused once to try to find a mentor, and we cannot even agree that the mentor is a mentor. We paused again because it was stated that the RfC should stay open for a month and it has now passed that time. Mattisse has made some unilateral suggestions. I think this has run its course and nothing will be generated here save for more bickering, upset and potential for disruption.

I'd like one more indication of consensus before I ask someone to formally close the page. Please speak up. --Dweller (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My view certainly hasn't changed, which is that this RfC has long since passed the point where anything productive is likely to come from it, so it might as well be closed. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By all means close, nothing is going to change here in a hurry. Giano (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standard reasons for closing an RfC/U

The dispute has been successfully resolved.
Nobody has posted comments for a long time and editors appear to have moved on.
The dispute has moved to other forums for resolution.

Note that "we !voted to close this so that no one else would add remarks in the future" isn't actually on the usual list, and that closing is not an irreversible step anyway. So: The dispute does not appear to be resolved. There have been a lot of comments in the last couple of days. The dispute hasn't moved to another forum for resolution. It may well be a complete waste of time, but it's probably not appropriate for "us" to close the RfC when it's possible that some other editor might think it entirely worth his/her time (or might start another RfC/U on exactly the same issues because the dispute is still ongoing).

If you think this RfC is a waste of time, then you can each individually take it off your watchlists or otherwise ignore it, but you probably shouldn't insist that it be closed unless the dispute is actually resolved or it's been superseded by another process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone insisting that it's closed. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC was abandoned for over 2 weeks, and the editor who restarted the discussion now favors closing it. Keeping this RfC open is distracting involved editors from improving and/or maintaining the encyclopedia. Time to close, not go by the rule book. Geometry guy 21:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I said I "favor" closing or even "favour" (which would be far more likely) - I said nothing is likely to change here. I think Mattisse needs referring to a higher authority. Giano (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is an alternative spelling "more likely"? I've still not quite recovered from my fit of lulz over your bandwagon comment. (My ankle is fine, thanks, and I thought an apology was pretty unlikely, but I wanted to give you the option.) If you want to close this to satisfy the ArbCom criterion that "other approaches have failed", well that is a matter for ArbCom to decide, isn't it? Geometry guy 23:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its supposed to be closed by an "uninvolved editor". Plenty of those around. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry guy: I believe that if an ArbCom case gets filed, then that's generally considered proof that the RfC/U failed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution by Mattisse to close RFC

Almost all of RFC diffs assembled against me are concerned with edits or comments that I made on a small number of the many FAC articles I edited over the years (typos) or on FARCs, or on FAC pages.

I believe it is best that I desist completely from any involvement at FAC or FACR. In an effort to close this RFC, I will resolve not edit at FAC and FARC again, nor post on the FAC talk page.

(There were diffs on two articles at GAR that the FAC editors had an interest in, both of which I had been requested to give a second opinion on at GA. Since there is evidence that my behavior at GAN is well respected and valued, and I have positive feedback that my work there does contribute and is held in high regard, I will continue to work at GAN, although avoiding any articles by regular FAC editors, or articles by editors I know they support, such as Fainites . However, when I believe an article is misleading such as Attachment Therapy, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Attachment therapy/1, I cannot ethically stand by without comment.)

*Since I have not been give constructive help or encouragement in this RFC by the two editors that felt this RFC necessary, (although Casliber has acknowledged my enormous contribution to his FA) by the FAC editors that have disparaged my work in this RFC, I believe it is best that I desist completely from any involvement at FAC or FACR. In an effort to close this RFC, I will resolve not edit again at FAC and FARC. One of the two main filers of this RFC, SandyGeorgia invited me back to edit at FA[23], but her comments mention no change of behavior toward me. I feel that the tenor of this RFC suggests that those errors and misjudgments I have made (though not made out of any malice or intention) are evaluated, by the filers of this RFC, to be of such a magnitude, that my overall efforts are not valued there but rather disparaged, and that I will be treated as before, never with good faith assumed and never given the benefit of the doubt, or given a helping hand, but rather called WP:POINTY rather than helped, despite the enormous amount of work I have put in there. My avoidance FAC and FACR should completely resolve the issue as I have very few problems elsewhere on Wikipedia, although I like others do make mistakes. (My substitute mentor, User:SilkTork, an editor above reproach, was called a "liar" by User:Giano II so I think this shows we all make mistakes.[24]

I reserve the right to edit Major depressive disorder, as I was a main contributor to that article's reaching FA during the month it was on FAC.[25] as well to edit other FA articles to which I have been a substantial or decisive contributor. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy to have you edit anywhere you like (as I have said many times), just keep focussed on content and avoid accusing or insinuating behaviour or motives without diffs or evidence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems elsewhere, so there should be no problem. Thanks for your ok. Once out of FAC and FARC, I am fine. So this RFC was good in the end, as it enabled me to see that. The outcome was best for me. So, thank you again for enabling this for me. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What have I enabled? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, you have enabled me to see that the hard, stressful, even grueling work, I was putting into FAC was not only pointless but actually harmful, as set forth in this RFC. While acknowledging that I do contribute to Wikipedia, you clarified that my talents lie else where than in participating in FAC and my good work in copy editing many FAC articles over the last two years has caused more harm than good. Since the FAC delegate plus an ArbCom member have put forth evidence in this RFC to support their belief that my contributions to FAC are harmful overall, then I must deeply appreciate having this drawn to my attention. True, it is an extremely painful way of finding this out. But working on articles at FAC is not "fun", nor is it satisfying when my work is repeatedly disparaged. As I was under the misapprehension that my copy editing FAC candidates and the registering my opinion on FAC was helpful and that I was contributing to Wikipedia by doing this work, I appreciate having my mistaken view pointed out to me so I can change my behavior and work in the many other areas of Wikipedia instead. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have ethical concerns about me or my editing Matisse, then by all means take it to the proper forum where it can be looked at. Spreading unsubstantiated and unsupported allegations and personal attacks all over Wiki is not the answer. You need to realise that far from being "poor little vulnerable me" you do in fact have considerable power which derives from your solid and talented review work and the many editors who appreciate that. However, when you then target editors who you believe, for whatever reason, to be your enemies, to pursue pointy reviews mixed with personal attacks and dubious motivations, you are abusing your power. All that is being asked of you is that you AGF or, if you do have legitimate concerns, that you deal with them in an appropriate way at the appropriate forums (with evidence). Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fainites, please retract you above comments or show proof that I was "Spreading unsubstantiated and unsupported allegations and personal attacks all over Wiki." Please do not make general derogatory statements against me without proof. My complaints about your article were completely and satisfactorily handled by Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Attachment_therapy/1, and were not brought up in any other forum. I was following the advice of User talk:Malleus Fatuorum whom I asked for help as to how to handle your article. I have no other complaints about articles of yours and I am not generalizing to all your articles. However, my good faith request for reassessment of this article prompted you to suspect me of not having good faith,[26][27] and my request for a reassessment (based on my considered opinion arrived at in good faith that the article was misleading) was listed as part of this RFC against me. I am merely stating that if and when I see an article I judge as misleading that passes as a GA on the subject of mental health/psychology/pseudoscience (or whatever) again, I reserve the right to ask for a reassessment. Fainites, do you consider Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Attachment_therapy/1 as my "Spreading unsubstantiated and unsupported allegations and personal attacks all over Wiki"? —Mattisse (Talk) 14:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs for the unsubstantiated and unsupported allegations and personal attacks are already in the diffs provided on the issue in the RfC by Casliber and myself in relation to that GAR and by Casliber and other editors in relation to other venues. "All over Wiki" is probably hyperbole so I withdraw that. I have not complained about the Attachment therapy reassessment. I have complained about the unsubstantiated and unsupported allegations and personal attacks you made in the context of requesting an assessment. My remarks above were not intended to apply solely to the GAR in any event.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could point out to what you are referring. Do you mean Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Attachment_therapy/1, as that is the request for assessment? Or this[28] or this [29] or this?[30] Or this?[31] Or this?[32] Do you mean by, "The diffs for the unsubstantiated and unsupported allegations and personal attacks are already in the diffs provided on the issue in the RfC by Casliber and myself in relation to that GAR and by Casliber and other editors in relation to other venues", that you mean your talk page, the article talkpage, and the GAR page?? Where are the "personal attacks"? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As`clearly stated above - I mean the diffs already provided in this RfC which I understand from your comments on that page you have already worked through. The sections are here and here under No. 5. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that your article had to be delisted as a GA through GAR. However, ethically, it was something I felt I had to do. Some others weighing in on the GAR had the same concerns I did, including User:Malleus Fatuorum, who counselled me to list it at GAR immediately.[33] There was no one that disagreed in the GAR. For example: User:Malleus Fatuorum said, *Delist. This article is way overbalanced in the amount of space describing – too often repeatedly – a discredited form of therapy. It's not until almost the end of the article we learn that "Zaslow's ideas on the use of the Z-process and holding for autism have been dispelled by research on the genetic/biologic causes of autism." There's no explanation at all of why autism was regarded as a model for lack of attachment, and no explanation as to why presumably sane individuals came to be persuaded to treat children in the way that they did. The Milgram experiment comes to mind, for instance. This therapy arose and was promoted within a sociological context which the article does not explain.
The people who thought I was "disrupting" should have stood up for the article and helped you fix it up. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matisse, leaving aside for the moment the inaccuracies in your post above, I do not believe that you cannot understand the plain English written in the RfC and here which shows clearly that the concern is about the allegations and personal attacks, not whether an article was delisted or not. Your posts here on this issue are disingenous. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fainites, please do not make accusations. My post above is not inaccurate. Check it out yourself. You are using diffs from the filers of this RFC that other commentators who read through them, like User:Durova and User:SilkTork said were inaccurate and distorted. Some they said, did not even portray what they purported to, or even showed the opposite. I agree with them. In fact, I received a lot of support from others weighing in. Please do not rely on evidence that is misleading. If you were right, then why was the article delisted? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rely on the diffs that have been posted. Others can read them. (By the way, delisting was not supported by three of the eight editors who commented. One never opined. The other 4 supported delisting). The article was delisted for a variety of reasons - one editor for example thought it was unfair to less extreme attachment therapy which he thought should be described as "middle ground" and mainstream - a view you supported. I have not objected to anybody's opinions on this article. I objected to your allegations and personal attacks for which diffs have been provided. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested some experienced help with this. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Closing

Good day all, I saw the note at AC/N and hope this will resolve any deadlock on its closure. This discussion has received its fair share of editors and community input as compared to other similar RfC which may be less. There's even possible solutions being listed, indication of good progress made in the course of the discussion.

Let's give the RfC three more days. If anyone has something substantial to raise on the page itself, please do so now. Otherwise, this discussion's natural course is exhausted, and under clause 2 should be considered closed. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]