Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 38: Line 38:
Reference: [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1]]
Reference: [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1]]


There was consensus to begin restoring [[Che Guevara]] to featured status, work proceeding mutually with no issues, the article looked to be on track to be restored, when Mattisse suddenly took offense but never explained why;[ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SandyGeorgia/archr#question] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Che_Guevara&diff=194586773&oldid=194576329] the article was defeatured.
There was consensus to begin restoring [[Che Guevara]] to featured status, work proceeding mutually with no issues, the article looked to be on track to be restored, when Mattisse suddenly took offense but never explained why;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SandyGeorgia/archr#question] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Che_Guevara&diff=194586773&oldid=194576329] the article was defeatured.




Revision as of 02:36, 31 December 2008

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 11:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute

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

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

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

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

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

Cause of concern

{Add summary here, provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.}


Since her earliest days on Wiki, and continuing to the present, there has been evidence of difficulties with collaboration (as an example, note these frustrated comments from FayssalF), understanding Wiki policies and assuming good faith, with repeated charges by her of an "in group" or "gangs of administrators" out to get her, and threats to leave when this is pointed out. (a few examples: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]) and a pattern of not taking responsibility for changing her behavior. When apparent sockpuppets were discovered (see Sockpuppets of Mattisse) Mattisse disclaimed the sockpuppet charges, but several were checkuser verified and several (such as ABSmyth (talk · contribs), Dattat (talk · contribs), NothingMuch (talk · contribs), Flinders (talk · contribs) and GBYork (talk · contribs)) are consistent with her editing and don't appear likely to have been from her grandchildren (the explanation offered at the time).

Mattisse also has a history of falling out with editors who befriend her: for example, Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) [9], User:Dineshkannambadi (talk · contribs) (see this racist personal attack) and SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) . [10][11][12][13][14][15]

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

What follows are some additional samplings.

Disruption of Featured Article Review process

Che Guevera

Reference: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1

There was consensus to begin restoring Che Guevara to featured status, work proceeding mutually with no issues, the article looked to be on track to be restored, when Mattisse suddenly took offense but never explained why;[16] [17] the article was defeatured.


Using WP:FAR for pointy nominations

Mattisse submitted Robert A. Heinlein to FAR on November 11. [18] [19] Less than 24 hours later, after a disagreement at Augustan literature (and because the FAR instructions permit only one nomination at a time), she withdrew and deleted the Heinlein FAR to submit Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Augustan_literature/archive1 instead. (background from talk page)

Disruption of the Good Article process

Good Article Nomination for Attachment therapy

After User:SandyGeorgia apparently happened across an article under GA review when correcting an articlehistory error and provided information about citations in the lead of an article while there, Mattisse referred to the primary editor of the article as obsessed, and erroneously stated several times that the article "got passed because its editor was encouraged during the GA review by an FAC intruder (who jumped into the GA review process, just before the decision was made to pass) and declared the article close to FAC" and made personal attacks , also stating that "SandyGeorgia and company will probably interfere again", even after the editor passing the GA clarified that the pass had nothing to do with the mild comment about citations in the lead.[20] Mattisse has a history of persisting with notions even after she has been told they are not correct.

Good Article Review for Brenda Song

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattisse/Archive_16#Brenda_Song_GAR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattisse/Archive_16#Re._From_Mattisse

Disruption of the RfA process

Edit warring and disruption at Coppertwig's RFA (Mattisse had a lengthy dispute with Coppertwig over Che Guevara): [21]


Unfounded and unstruck oppose at Epbr123's RFA, even after her errors were pointed out by several editors:[22][23] Mattisse rarely strikes incorrect information, retracts, or apologizes even after her info has been shown incorrect.


Disruption of the Editor review process

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


Disruption of the Featured Article Candidacy process

Featured Article Candidacy for Reactive attachment disorder

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


Constant disparagement of FAC process, derailing discussions at WT:FAC, leading other editors to suggest an archiving of the entire page: [24]

[25]



Major Depressive Disorder


Copyedits

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


MEDRS

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)/Archive_2#EverSince_Comment

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


Frequent incorrect statements, left uncorrected


inappropriate edit summaries

Other

  • this odd exchange on Risker's talk page, where Mattisse appears to cast aspersions on Risker's impartiality in arb cases (whole thread linked) because Risker gave holiday greetings to some editors.
  • and this one on Maralia's talk page, where Mattisse turns up to claim some rather outlandish things, quickly debunked by Maralia and Malleus Fatuorum.

Detailed analysis of a FAC candidacy

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

My first in-depth interaction with Mattisse came about while nominating major depressive disorder at FAC, which was subsequently restarted. I admit that I did goof badly in the sourcing; alot of keen editors had been very helpful along the way and I had visions of a great group effort, but I was sloppy and didn't check the sources as closely as I should. Mattisse was instrumental in the proper sourcing of the article, but I really could have done without the gratuitous remarks along the way - the tone did deteriorate and I did lose my temper (see chronology below), however Mattisse repeated that I harassed and made personal attacks on her.[28][29][30][31] and being 'driven off' [32] I found this hard to take as my impression was that she started the confrontational tone and yet accused me of the same.

Timeline of mdd fac

I tried to construct a sequence of interactions from the beginning of the FAC until the time of Eusebeus support (it took me 2 hours to look through these) as follows:

  • here Mattisse joins in with some comments.
  • [33] here I reply 28 minutes later, agreeing with both, and then notifying I had reworded 4 hours later.
  • here Mattisse highlights prose, which I answered here and tried to fix up but was tricky.
  • here I think Mattisse misinterprets me, as I didn't say I was going to use the word conjectural and I try and clarify...
  • here you make a suggestion, and here I agree with Mattisse

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

In the middle, PMID crashed

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

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

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

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

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

  • here Mattisse feels my participation was not satisfactory (despite >200 edits ????) and states she thinks I have ADD. (Note that I was bemused more than anything else by this)


  • To which Mattisse responds thus, describing a fear of being blocked for replying to me.
  • 2nd segment suggests I threatened blocking her for opposing the mdd FAC.
  • here edit summary make comment about fear of Dweller blocking her for using the word 'damn'
  • here suggests my link with Dweller was used to drive her away from FAC.

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

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

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:AGF
  2. WP:CIV

Desired outcome

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

What I would like to see is for Mattisse to either provide evidence for or drop allegations of an FAC cabal, and for her to desist from comments about my conduct which I feel are untrue, such as fear of my supposed bullying tactics.

However I thought her last message to me was so bizarre, I question her ability to see this objectively. I hope I am wrong. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC) [39] begin, ended with section blanking, final reply from Mattisse[reply]

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

Questions

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

Q.

A.


Q.

A.

Response

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

Response to concerns

{Add summary here.}


Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

Questions

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

Q.

A.


Q.

A.


Outside view

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

Outside view by

{Enter summary here.}

Users who endorse this summary:


Proposed solutions

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

Template

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

Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Discussion

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse_3&oldid=261010900"