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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

(←) (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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)