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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:31, 3 January 2009

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC).

Mattisse (talk · contribs · logs)
Previous RfCs on Mattisse: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2
For more information on Mattisse's sockpuppetry: Sockpuppets of Mattisse, [1]

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:DYK, WP:RFA and Editor review, among other places.

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

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

Cause of concern

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

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

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

What follows are some additional samplings.

Disruption of Featured Article Review process

Che Guevara

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

There was consensus to begin restoring Che Guevara to featured status, work proceeding mutually with no issues, the article appeared to be on track to be restored, when Mattisse suddenly took offense but never explained why;[15] [16] the article was defeatured.

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

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

Using WP:FAR for pointy nominations

Mattisse submitted Robert A. Heinlein to FAR on November 11. [17] [18] Less than 24 hours later, after a disagreement at Augustan literature (and because the FAR instructions permit only one nomination at a time), she withdrew and deleted the Heinlein FAR to submit Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Augustan_literature/archive1 instead. (background from talk page.)

Disruption of the Good Article process

Good Article Nomination for Attachment therapy

After User:SandyGeorgia apparently happened across an article under GA review when correcting an articlehistory error and provided information about citations in the lead while there, Mattisse referred to the primary editor of the article as obsessed, and erroneously stated several times that the article "got passed because its editor was encouraged during the GA review by an FAC intruder (who jumped into the GA review process, just before the decision was made to pass) and declared the article close to FAC" and made personal attacks, also stating that "SandyGeorgia and company will probably interfere again", even after the editor passing the GA clarified that the pass had nothing to do with the mild comment about citations in the lead.[19] Mattisse has a history of persisting with notions even after she has been told they are not correct.

Good Article Review for Brenda Song

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattisse/Archive_16#Brenda_Song_GAR which includes 'Power is used to protect those people who are useful because they do what they are told; this furthers personal interests, right or wrong', SandyGeorgia never forgave me...How many of her boys are willing to be penalized in such a manner? (more conspiracy), and fairly lengthy personal attack on SandyGeorgia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattisse/Archive_16#Re._From_Mattisse "Ah, so you involved Geometryguy. It was a set up No wonder he deleted my comments from the GAR. He is part of this protective ingroup."

Disruption of the RfA process

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

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

Disruption of the Editor review process

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

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

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

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

and MastCell observed to Mattisse:

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

Disruption of the Featured Article Candidacy process

Featured Article Candidacy for Reactive attachment disorder

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

Constant disparagement of FAC process, derailing discussions at WT:FAC, leading other editors to suggest an archiving of the entire page: [23], [24]

Mattisse takes issue with the FAC process:

FAC is one in a long line of ridiculous FACs. Look at FAC as a reality show that (thankfully) doesn't reflect reality or even (thankfully) Wikipedia.

Mattisse disparages other editors as groupies:

This is where being a FAC groupie is important.

Mattisse claims there is a cabal:

As a hanger-around-FAC editor, I could list a group that are "strongly linked".

Mattisse is then challenged to substantiate the claims:

I hardly feel like being a victim of the FAC McCarthyists who are demanding that I "name names".

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

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

Major Depressive Disorder

Copyedits

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

MEDRS

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

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

Incorrectly alleges comments removed from FAC page
Claims that SandyGeorgia demoted Che Guevara followed by sarcasm and inappropriate edit summaries: [25][26]
Arising from a warning on Mattisse's page, Mattisse and Malleus Fatuorum put forward a joint fantasy of Giano being "immune from administrator warnings or blocks", "unlike you or I". As a glance at the block logs would have shown them, Giano has actually been blocked 19 times over the past twelve months, to Matisse's zero times. The hot-tempered Giano is closely watched with a view to blocking, while Mattisse with her never-ending acid rain of negativity apparently flies under the civility patrol radar.

Inappropriate edit summaries

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

Che Guevera: "restore my comment removed by another editor with time on her hands & no interest in this article currently"
Niobium: "gee, fav User:Casliber went thru it"
User_Talk:Mattisse (after Lar expressed concern about previous edits, this is part of an exchange where several other editors are telling Mattisse that perhaps there is something to be concerned about... Mattisse tells Ottava to go away) "reply to Ottava Rima - you are very free to unwatch this page, and I encourage you to do so, as I do all Big Wiggers"
After Risker wishes Mattisse and others a happy holiday, Mattisse complains about being greeted. Or about not being greeted, it's difficult to follow what the exact complaint is. Calling leaving greetings "showering favours" Mattisse insists that Risker recuse from any case where she left someone in the case a holiday greeting. Risker demurs, so Mattisse fires back: "where is your answer to the question you ignored during Arbcom voting?"
An exchange with ex-friend Malleus including some swipes at several others ends with this: Threats of incivility blocking? Where is your usual rant about block- happy admins - looks like you got one patrolling your page!
From that same exchange: Three edit summaries of "Comment and dewatch as BW says", referring to SandyGeorgia as "bigwig": [27], [28], [29]
"Sandy's attempt to sabatogue an RFA"
"Jennaveca threatens blocks for comments on talk page of Malleus - what a legacy for him"
"Giano has hard time allowing others to edit Buckingham Palace"
Taunts Casliber for his sig: keep so as to be irritating in Arbcom votes! Further punishment for sanctioned editors!, then swipes at another editor encouraging Casliber to keep "cheers" in his signature you can always tell an Australian - Cheers!
"SandyGeorgia contacted Jbmurray which put this situation in motion" (untrue, diff never provided, Mattisse continued to state this even after shown it was untrue).
"fated to live in past"
" agree - but it engenders hostility if nominator is popular at FAC"

Other

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

More recent comments around DYK

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

Detailed analysis of a FAC candidacy

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

My first in-depth interaction with Mattisse came about while nominating major depressive disorder (MDD) at FAC, which was subsequently restarted. I admit that I did goof badly in the sourcing; alot of keen editors had been very helpful along the way and I had visions of a great group effort, but I was sloppy and didn't check the sources as closely as I should. Mattisse was instrumental in the proper sourcing of the article, but I really could have done without the gratuitous remarks along the way - the tone did deteriorate and I did lose my temper (see chronology below), however Mattisse repeated that I harassed and made personal attacks on her.[30][31][32][33] and being 'driven off' [34] I found this hard to take as my impression was that she started the confrontational tone and yet accused me of the same.

Timeline of MDD FAC

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

here Mattisse joins in with some comments.

here Casliber replies 28 minutes later, agreeing with both, and then notifying Casliber had reworded 4 hours later.

here Mattise makes a suggestion which was taken up

here Casliber concedes Mattisse's point on a source Kent and this has been hard to find.

here Mattisse highlights prose, which Casliber answered here and tried to fix up but was tricky.

here Casliber thinks Mattisse misinterprets him, as he didn't say he was going to use the word conjectural and he tries and clarify...

here Mattisses make a suggestion, and here Casliber agrees with Mattisse

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

In the middle, PMID crashed

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

here Mattisse makes a note of primary sources, Casliber concedes it has taken time to whittle them out

here Mattisse lists some, Casliber kept Mattisse updated 2 hours later

here we are back to religion again but the mood is still good; Casliber is having no problem at this stage.

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

...and here it starts. Note Casliber does not/did not have a problem with paras 1-10, though was taken aback by "Further, I am shocked (naive as I am) that anyone would register a "Support" for this article on an important topic without carefully reading it through."

here Casliber begins explaining and trying to address.

here Mattisse pulls Casliber up on nihilism (which is actually mentioned in some psych textbooks, but she was right in that it wasn't the right word. Still Mattisse is starting to get bitey here. And here Casliber concedes the point.

here Mattisse chimes in and repeats herself again and complain about points not being addressed. This speech was uncalled for and quite threatening. There was material cropping up which Casliber was dealing with steadily, and had dealt with some of them by this time. Some refs were elusive.

here Casliber staying calm and positive

....here - Mattisse complains of page length and decide to question other editors' supports.

Meanwhile others are attempting to address concerns still

here Casliber makes a measured comment as by this stage is becoming worn out by M's previous comments and Casliber says that "reams of self-righteous invective and feeling like I am being held to ransom." was pretty much what the comments felt like.

Mattisse apologises here

here Casliber tries and show his appreciation and note the points Mattisse has mentioned are valid.

and here Mattisse starts again

So here Casliber tries to wave an olive branch.

here Mattisse rejoins in a more constructive/neutral way

and here is a pretty drastic comment but Casliber does concede added in a neutral manner.

here Mattisse sort of half offers to help...and here Casliber tries to show his appreciation.

here is a thankyou from Mattisse.

but here Mattisse decides not to look in her book and qualify with a rather exaggerated and inaccurate statement about references.

Aftermath

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

here Mattisse feels Casliber's participation was not satisfactory (despite >200 edits ????) and states she thinks he has ADD. (Note that Casliber was bemused more than anything else by this)

Dweller warns her for it here.

To which Mattisse responds thus, describing a fear of being blocked for replying to Casliber.

her final response upon my posting a chronology was to blank the section.

2nd segment suggests I threatened blocking her for opposing the mdd FAC.

here edit summary make comment about fear of Dweller blocking her for using the word 'damn'

here suggests my link with Dweller was used to drive her away from FAC.

and again that Casliber 'tried to get her blocked'.

stating she will 'stay clear' of Dweller

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.

on a 'small group of people controlling FAC'
and again
and again
alludes to strongly linked group of editors, to which she was challenged to list them. For ongoing discussion which ensued, see here about half way down. Mattisse concludes she is not crazy enough to name names [35] [36] and [37]

begins another discussion casting doubt on FAC (whole thread currently at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#Congrats.21), and calling User:Jennavecia a block happy admin

alludes to 'clique' of editors in an oppose vote at RfA.

'no-one has the nerve to oppose...it is a setup' comment about FAC

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Wikipedia:Civility

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing

Wikipedia:Harassment

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Desired outcome

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

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

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

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC) [38] 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.

@@ Line 148: / Line 148: @@
 *[[User_talk:Risker/Archive_5#Your_mailing_list|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.
 *[[User_talk:Maralia#Oh.2C_trouble.21|This exchange]] on Maralia's talk page, where Mattisse turns up to claim some rather outlandish things, quickly debunked by Maralia and Malleus Fatuorum.
-*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes&curid=5216417&diff=261288917&oldid=261284136 general disparaging tone about another editor's credit] for an article [[Sagara Sanosuke]]. This one gets a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattisse#Do_not_modify_the_comments_of_others|reaction]], although Mattisse apologises but qualified.
+*On [[Wikipedia talk:Footnotes]], Mattisse edits someone else's comment to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AFootnotes&diff=261223123&oldid=261219086 strike out] an article the other editor said they worked on, then after being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes&diff=prev&oldid=261284136 reverted] to restore the original words of the other editor, continues with a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes&curid=5216417&diff=261288917&oldid=261284136 general disparaging tone about another editor's credit] for an article [[Sagara Sanosuke]], ''AGAIN'' modifying the words of another. This one gets Mattisse a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattisse#Do_not_modify_the_comments_of_others warning] on her talk, and Mattisse apologises, but qualifies it as "late at night", (per the usual pattern of not unqualifiedly ever admitting fault).
 ====More recent comments around DYK====