Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Note: Please see my comments at the top of the Workshop page before posting evidence in this case. I thank all participants in the case for your cooperation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Ottava Rima

I do not have diffs for the below because these are very long range and deal with stuff already mentioned. However, I felt that putting this in evidence would be good formality.

Mattisse at FAC and FAR

Mattisse has reviewed FAC and FAR for a very long time. They have supported and opposed, and have shown willingness to oppose FAC and FAR regulars, which means that they do not support people because they have "been around for a while". While I have had some tense interaction with them (a little here) I have not seen any that have been incivil or malice based. Instead, they show a genuine concern for FAC and FAR as a whole.

Mattisse at GAN and GAR

The same can be said as above. Mattisse has shown a lot of interest and dedication in these areas. They have reviewed more articles in these areas than most people and put in a lot of work. They show a desire to improve the encyclopedia and believe that these areas are central in promoting high quality work.

Mattisse at DYK

Mattisse has done a lot of good in helping out reviewing DYKs when needed. DYK always needs fresh eyes reviewing hooks, and Mattisse (like Awadewit) has brought their knowledge of content building standards to DYK in a manner which ensures that we have decent pages passing through and not some of the problems that we had previously (original research, copyright problems, etc).

Evidence presented by Jennavecia

Mattisse is a highly valued contributor to the project, performing tasks vital to the improvement of the encyclopedia in the area of content. She has provided impressive work in the areas of FA, GA and DYK as a reviewer as well as a writer, and has become known as a high quality copy-editor. Unfortunately, Mattisse has a propensity to assume bad faith and to misrepresent other's comments, casting aspersions on their intentions.

Mattisse assumes bad faith, misrepresents other's comments

Several examples of Mattisse failing to AGF are present in a discussion on my talk page. Read the discussion here.
- Mattisse spoke of "the editors that have been alerted by your side of the issue", seeming to assume anyone commenting in disagreement with her had been canvassed by another who disagreed with her.[1]
- Following me telling her to "do what you want", when asked if she could replace the template I had removed, she stated:
"I am too intimidated to replace it myself, as you might block me for reverting you. An administrator enters a content dispute, but editors like me are vulnerable to your whims. It has never been understandable why admins chooses to block under certain conditions. I know they can block without warning for even joking comments on talk pages that the other editor acknowledges is a joke at the time. Therefore, I believe you could ban me or block me for whatever length of time you want. Can I risk that? No."[2]
- Once I pointed out the absurdity of her comment, both noting (on two pages) that I am neither acting as an admin nor in a position to block, she stated:
"As an editor, I can never be sure that through the whimsy of an admin I will not be blocked. Never have I felt at the mercy of an admin so strongly as I do at this moment. Jennavecia still has not clarified anything. It is unknown if I would be blocked for reverting the removal of the {{GAR}} template..."[3]
- She goes on to completely misrepresent my opinion of her and her work in GA, casting aspersions on my intentions for posting my GA credentials, so to speak.
"Jennavecia is saying she has no respect at all for my judgment by humiliating me in my attempts to keep up the standards of GA. Under these conditions, I will not review any more articles for GA. I do not want to be blocked for having good judgment that is not politically correct in the eyes of an admin who clearly thinks she is the superior in a content dispute."[4] (same diff as previous)
Mattisse has on multiple occasions stated that I have threatened to block her or otherwise given her reason to fear such ([5][6][7][8]), at least once seeming to refer to me as a "block-happy admin". This is, of course, not supported by evidence and contradicts my blocking history.
In Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3, Mattisse claims that SandyGeorgia posted a suggestion on my talk page that I block Mattisse based on material found in her archives. Her diff to support this shows no such suggestion.[9]
Also in that RFC, she claims that I threatened to block her based on comments she made on Malleus Fatuorum's talk page. I did warn her about her comments there, which included many personal attacks, however, I did not threaten to block her. I merely stated "It's not worth a block."[10]

Mattisse violates WP:POINT

Mattisse has acknowledged that she does not react well to stress and "fear", as she put it. Indeed, no editor should fear anything or anyone on this project. To me, this indicates a deeper problem that neither ArbCom nor any other area of Wikipedia is equipped to address. Regardless, examples of Mattisse's WP:POINTiness:

Mattisse creates a section on her user page titled "Plague". She expands it with more names several times ([11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]). She then changes the title to "Torment" and expands it further ([21][22]). The list ultimately included 16 editors.[23]
Mass notifying those she's found involved in the most recent conflict with:[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] (Noting a particularly well-put statement by MastCell in response to the post on SandyGeorgia's talk page.)
:"Please join: Please join the arbitration against me. All negative comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration under my name. Perhaps you choose not to participate, but I believe it would be doing me a favor if I am banned from Wikipedia. Otherwise, I will continue to contribute and that is not good for my welfare. Regards, Mattisse."

Analysis of this evidence discussed here.

Evidence presented by Tex

I've only really dealt with Mattisse in one situation, but I've seen her being disruptive in quite a few places. Unfortunately, since she is such a prolific editor, it's almost impossible to track through so many edits to find the diffs. It would behoove arbs to have a look at the Buckingham Palace FAR page in it's entirety to get an idea of some of the disruption. That article was retained as a FA because of Risker and Casliber despite Mattisse's disruption.

Matisse's disruption and assumptions of bad faith

One of the main reasons for the 3rd RFC was Mattisse's attitude and disruption on FAR. Mattisse begged for days to have that RFC closed and mentioned that she would stop commenting on FAR and FAC if the RFC were closed, see here. After the RFC was closed on Febrary 9th, Mattisse continued to stir the pot in FAR when she went to the Restoration Comedy FAR to "warn" the nominator about a group of editors that would attack him for nominating it. She also, on numerous occasions accused Casliber of "bad faith" in bringing that RFC. She also continued to disrupt the Buckingham Palace FAR by refusing to assume good faith on Casliber's part. After Casliber asked for 10 days to get the references he needed, Mattisse would not leave the Buckingham Palace FAR alone and let Casliber go to the library to check out the books like he asked.

Mattisse also has a tendency to go back and change her comments after they have already been responded to, changing the meaning of her comments so it looks like the person responding to it is out of touch. She did that on the Buckingham Palace FAR by adding the "fact" that Sandy Georgia "invited" Mattisse back to comment on FAR. If you look at the timestamps, however, Sandy's comment was actually posted some 14 days before Mattisse promised to stop editing FAR. This happened just after a conversation on Risker's talk page where Risker was trying to advise Mattisse not to do this exact thing and Hans Adler had mentioned earlier in the FAR.

And speaking of her saying she will never contribute to FAC or FAR again, she has said that on numerous occassions, but has failed to do so. It will take hours to sift through her contributions to find all the times she has claimed that she would stop, but here are a few.

Evidence presented by Cyborg Ninja

It is important that you see this.

Mattisse threatens "endless misery"

This is a diff where Mattisse threatens "endless misery" to another user and even calls an administrator a "dick." She also says she will be back in a "destructive way" and to "beware." She has called herself "an asshole," "an evil person," and "a horrible person."

Mattisse to LessHeardVanU: "You are a WP:DICK"

Abusive to not only editors, but administrators as well.

Mattisse calls Wikipedia an "evil place"

She has also threatened to leave several times only to never do so.

Has her behavior truly changed? Why does she continue to argue with other editors and find herself in arbitration repeatedly? Why do we ignore this behavior and allow it to continue? Wikipedia will still exist and perhaps be even stronger with the contributions of people who will finally be free to add to Wikipedia without retaliation from Mattisse.

Evidence presented by John Carter

Mattisse has acknowledged recent wrongdoing and apologized for same

Mattisse has acknowledged recent misbehavior and apologized for it before this case was opened here.

Previous requests for comment regarding Mattisse

It should be noted that as per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse#Outside view, there is a unanimous endorsement by all outside parties commenting that the RfC was "brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary", which is this case included Mattisse. It should also be noted that in the same unanimous view it was found that Mattisse was subject to a "number of visious (sic) personal attacks". The second time Mattisse was the subject of an RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2, the outside view, again unanimous, was that Mattisse had done nothing wrong, and she was in fact even almost commended by DCDuring for conduct in a dispute she had earlier had with that person. So, out of three RfCs filed against her to date, in the first she was, basically, found to have been the victim of vicious personal attacks and harassment, in the second the worst that was said about her was that she could be "excessively firm in tone", and in neither instance was she really rebuked in any real substantive way, other than in the second instance to be perhaps less emotional. This history does seem to demonstrate that for whatever reason Mattisse's history of "misconduct" is at least as much a history of being the victim of "misconduct" by others. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other instances in which Mattisse has been the subject of dubiously justifiable criticism

This thread describes an incident in which Mattisse was threatened with a block for making an "in joke" to fellow professional, which that party clearly acknowledged was taken as a joke by him.

Response to Cyborg Ninja

The material in question in your evidence is from 2007. Mattisse has I believe already had his or her behavior from that period analyzed already. There is some question whether the material you have produced is particularly relevant to the discussion at hand. Mattisse has also indicated that he or she has reconciled with LessHeardvanU, and really, using an extant shortcut to another page is hardly grounds for making a statement to the ArbCom anyway. At least one of the comments from the outside views in the previous RfC involing Mattisse and Cyborg Ninja may be of interest here as well. "Both Milk Shabazz and Cyborg have repeatedly assumed bad faith from the get-go, as they themselves noted, and this appears to be the rule for Cyborg Ninja, rather than the exception." was a statement endorsed by three parties. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Jayen466

Mattisse commented at an RfC on May 4th

Mattisse commented at an RfC for the FA The Age of Reason on May 4, arguing, as did most commenting at the RfC, that a reference to Michael Moore being the new Thomas Paine was out of place in the article The Age of Reason. Awadewit (talk · contribs), who has (re-)inserted such references regularly for the past 2 years or so [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47], disagreed, and continued to be very persistent about this, and Mattisse took umbrage. The lack of diplomacy aside, I think Mattisse's analysis and instincts here were spot on.

The same day I mentioned in passing a GA review Mattisse had done at the Scientology arbcom. [48].

Mattisse comments at Talk:Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology on May 5th

Mattisse expresses her opinion that the article is misleading and does not reflect the book: [49]. Cirt (talk · contribs), joined by Awadewit (talk · contribs), argues in a similarly intense and at times deliberately high-handed and needling manner: [50][51]. Mattisse initiates GAR: [52][53][54]

Cirt files an AN/I complaint on May 5th

[55] This alleges "wikihounding" of Awadewit. Cirt neglects to mention her or his current involvement in the Scientology arbcom, but adds links to Mattisse's prior RfCs going back several years. Numerous editors who have previous beef with Mattisse join in the AN/I thread, one expressly noting that they know nothing about the specific case Cirt's complaint is about. [56]

The GAR for Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology is underway here: [57] The concerns Mattisse raised have been confirmed, and in part already addressed. The net result of Mattisse's action, for Wikipedia, is that the encyclopedia is being improved. The net result for Mattisse is that she has been attacked, insulted, spoken down to by several admins, accused of wikihounding, had sanctions drawn up against her at AN/I by Cirt's mentor and advocate, Durova, [58][59][60][61][62][63] and is now the subject of this case. Here, just to demonstrate that there seems to have been no prior history of animosity between Cirt and Mattisse, a GA review Mattisse did on one of Cirt's articles a couple of months ago: [64]

As I see it, Mattisse crossed two editors with strongly held opinions. Both took it badly and were, frankly, intent on revenge, thinking that Mattisse was a vulnerable target (witness our presence here). As for Mattisse's motivatons, I think she is motivated by her integrity and love of the encyclopedic ideal, rather than the wish to get along with people or make friends, and she does not compromise on this. This makes her a great asset to the encyclopedia, as well as, sometimes, an annoyance to those whose work she critiques.

But also look at the other side: the number of barnstars Mattisse has received for her reviewing and article improvements and the grateful and enthusiastic comments that have come along with them from so many editors speak for themselves, as does the respect she enjoys among her peers in the reviewing processes. Jayen466 00:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of evidence discussions

Editors should note that there is an Analysis of evidence section at the bottom of the Workshop page, where discussions are ongoing as well. Jayen466 10:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Dabomb87

Mattisse has been a productive contributor

I am not denying that there are behavioral problems to be addressed, but I do want to point out her excellent content (and reviewing) contributions. See this list of her 175 Good Article Reviews, her 75 Did You Know (DYK)s, and articles she has created. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, she has copy-edited and reviewed many Featured article candidates (FACs), demonstrating her potential to collaborate and contribute without behavioral problems:

Loihi Seamount (FAC): [65] (a few edits weren't hers.
Elwood Haynes (FAC) [66] Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse has not always assumed good faith

See this comment about another user, in which she refers to him as "not a very pleasant character" who "takes pleasure in using tactics to try to make people feel bad about themselves and show his superiority". See the corresponding Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents thread, although it did not seem to achieve anything. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Spidern

Mattisse has contributed in a valuable way to Wikipedia

This is immediately apparent by looking at her impressive array of Featured Article promotions, over 450 article creations, more than 75 expansions/article creations which made it through DYK, and 21 barnstars in appreciation of her work here. She has also contributed significantly behind the scenes of DYK, reviewing hooks and ensuring that they are up to standard. ←Spidern→ 04:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology, Mattisse did not offer not offer constructive advice

When faced with criticism of selective sourcing, Cirt responded multiple times ([67], [68], [69], [70]) by stating that no further sources could be found.
Matisse did not respond with additional sources in support of her argument. Instead, she resorted to criticizing the content of the book itself.
Later, Cirt attempted to constructively address one concern that was brought up by Mattisse, and she responded by implying that editors were unwilling to cooperate. When Cirt requested that she take his response ([71]) of her criticism in good faith, she proceeded to mischaracterize Cirt's request: "Saying an article is POV is AGF?"

Criticism of an article is many times productive, provided that the criticizing party offers relevant and workable suggestions to address their concerns. The dialogue between Matisse and others on this article was not constructive because Mattisse consistently responded to constructive answers to her criticisms with hostility, rather than presenting executable advice. ←Spidern→ 04:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Geometry guy

I don't much like spending my limited Wikitime on this kind of thing, but I believe some comments from me will be helpful, and I have added them below. Geometry guy 22:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On GAR

The reassessment of good articles both by individual editors and the community is a vital part of the good article process. In the featured article process, featured article candidates are often subject to intense scrutiny from multiple reviewers, any actionable oppose may be grounds for not promoting, but once an article is promoted, it is not subject to Featured article review for at least 3-6 months. In contrast, each individual review of a good article nomination is only as good as the reviewer, and it is essential that good articles are open for reassessment at any time.

This difference is important when considering editor conduct: the filing of an FAR is a relatively rare event and may sometimes be interpreted as a hostile act where there is a dispute between editors; arbitrators will certainly have seen examples used in evidence. In contrast, whenever any editor has genuine concerns whether an article meets the good article criteria, reassessment is encouraged. Any uninvolved (and registered) editor may open an individual reassessment; any editor may open a community reassessment. While it is true that article contributors are not always happy that a reassessment has been initiated, good article reassessment is routine, and is needed whenever talk page dialogue cannot easily resolve concerns about the article.

On rare occasions, community reassessments are rejected because (e.g.) the issue is primarily a content dispute or the nomination is in bad faith. However, this should obviously be decided by an uninvolved editor. Geometry guy 20:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology GAR

The incident that sparked this RfArb began (I believe) with a misunderstanding. The compilation Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology is available online, e.g. here. Half way through the first page of the first article there begins a quote from a Scientology magazine. The material is hostile towards psychiatry, but it isn't immediately clear (at least in the online version) where quotation ends and Burroughs own views return. Burroughs voice returns halfway though the third page with a note and "Now what is all this flap about psychiatrists?". However the compilation itself confuses the issue by stating in an introduction to a later piece: "Three months ago, William Burroughs... started a controversy going by publishing an attack on the psychiatry profession and related fields such as Scientology." He had hardly attacked psychiatry at all.

This introduction was quoted in the article, and Mattisse's initial post to the talk page began with exactly this misunderstanding. Cirt's response clarified the article slightly, but not the misunderstanding. Result: two editors with past history of less-than-great interactions looking at the same material from utterly different viewpoints. The discussion deteriorated rapidly.

In my view Mattisse was entirely correct to start a community GAR. Talk page discussion was going nowhere, and she raised perfectly reasonable concerns, whether correct or not. At this point however, interpersonal editor dynamics were already starting to take over, and other editors have provided evidence. Geometry guy 21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is one further piece of evidence which I think is important. On 5 May, the day of the GAR incident, Mattisse made two posts on my talk page asking for my advice on the GAR reversion. The first post was at almost exactly the same time as Cirt took the dispute to AN/I. Unfortunately I was away on business and did not receive it until 24 hours later. I believe the incident might have evolved rather differently had I been around to smooth the waters. Anyway, it demonstrates Mattisse initially responding in a positive way to the dispute by seeking outside advice. Geometry guy 12:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A previous interaction

One of my previous interactions with Mattisse may be particularly relevant here, since it not only concerns Scientology, but was also one of the few other situations since the Jan/Feb RFC where Mattisse responded in a similar way to the latest incident. I would stress that by and large I believe Mattisse has been making some efforts to avoid confrontation since the RFC: please see my statement at the request.

The incident concerns a GAN review of Scientology in Germany by Mattisse, who drew my attention to problems with an SPA, Voxpopulis. In order to discuss the issue I read the article, and was rather concerned that it treated the German government with some disdain in comparison with a friendly attitude towards Scientology. Mattisse considered my comments as unsolicited and unwelcome intervention from someone in a position of authority (no editor has authority in the GA process): Karanacs' evidence provides some diffs below; in addition to the initial thread, two other threads from my talk page may provide context, as do Talk:Scientology_in_Germany#Comments_and_questions and Talk:Scientology_in_Germany#I_withdraw_as_reviewer.

As the threads show, Mattisse was pretty upset, and given her perception of me, I understand the way she felt. Fortunately, I did not become stressed or angry about her posts, and so in response I was able to underreact and focus on the issues, not the conflict. However, I did not compromise my position on the article unless persuaded by good argument, and Mattisse remained very upset. The article is now much improved (Jayen's positive response was central to this).

Mattisse apologized a month later, by which time this was water long under the bridge for me. Now she continues to seek my advice on difficult reviewing decisions. I see this as an encouraging sign: contrary to the harshest criticism against her, Mattisse is perfectly able to appreciate that an editor with whom she has had a very strong disagreement is not necessarily a long-term enemy. I hope the arbitrators will find ways to encourage this positive trend. Geometry guy 21:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Karanacs

I believe that Mattisse is dedicated to improving the encyclopedia, and I have great respect for her copyediting skills. I have interacted with her primarily at FAC, and I have also followed interactions she has had with other editors (active at FAC/GA/DYK) whose talk pages I watch. For the most part, I think that she is a fine reviewer in our content processes.

Mattisse assumes bad faith

RfC 3

The most recent RfC on Mattisse's behavior (January), revolved heavily around Mattisse's inability to always assume good faith. Mattisse supported a motion there that asked her to always assume good faith.

After the RfC closed, Mattisse's response has been to assume bad faith on the part of those who filed the RFC, and to bring up these bad faith assumptions in many locations, even months after the close.

"the point of {the RfC} was to point out my every fault in a magnified way with the goal of driving me away...FAC wants me gone."
"An RFC was opened on me because I reviewed an article and improved it by upgrading the article myself"
RfC was "punishment" for saying an article did not meet the criteria
"The RfC was brought in bad faith"
"SandyGeorgia turned on me and initiated an RfC against me, at which I received mostly support because of the lack of evidence....No one had tried to solve anything prior to filing it." (please see RfC for documentation on multiple instances of users, including me, trying to coach Mattisse to change her behavior) In this particular conversation, SandyGeorgia (who neither filed nor certified the dispute) had never been mentioned; Mattisse brought her name in

Mattisse assumes bad faith about FAC editors and personalizes disagreements

At the RfC, Mattisse was asked to provide explanations for many of her assertions against FAC editors (and had been previously asked many, many times to provide evidence). Rather than do so, she continues to push her belief that FAC editors are a cabal of horrible editors; this leads to an unpleasant atmosphere at WT:FAC and may scare off potential reviewers.

"substantial dangers of daring to review at FAC"
"almost all my problems stem from FAC and FACR"
[72] offers useful comments at FAC, but ends her post with on top of it, reviewing articles is enormously unpleasant, if not dangerous to one's mental health
This is a long thread, but it shows Mattisse making both insightful comments as well as those that hijack the thread and/or show an assumption of bad faith Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive36#Essential_featured_articles.3F

Mattisse interprets comments in worst light

see the conversation on Lar's talk page from April 6, where Mattisse twists what Lar says into thinking that he is totally against her User_talk:Lar#Please_help permanent link [73]
misinterprets a comment on her talk page and uses it as a slam against another editor "Agree that he is not worth taking seriously"
Awadawit mentions her "expertise in a narrow field" in a discussion about more narrow topics appearing at FAC; rather than interpret this as "I write what I know", Mattisse interprets it as an attack on herself and "a very narrow and prejudicial assumption of yours"

later in the same conversation " best for those of us not welcome here to remember that fact and to keep in mind that we are in a hostile environment on this page. I realize you dominate here and certainly do not mean to contest that. I mistakenly wanted to discuss the issue of "experts". But I give up and cede to your dominance. "

Mattisse assumes bad faith at FAR

Mattisse makes bad-faith comments on an FAR which she has been previously uninvolved [74]
On Mar 16, Risker posts on Mattisse's talk page, reminding her that in the RfC she agreed to refrain from bad faith assumptions.
Mttisse's response "You see me as acting in bad faith when I am trying to help another, innocent editor, hoping that he will not end up as confused and desperate as I did when I wandered unprepared into the ugliness of those disruptive attacks" and continues her belief that the RfC vindicated her behavior, and more complaints against Casliber for not working at a pace she thought reasonable
then immediately posts on Risker's talk page accusing Risker of assuming bad faith about Mattisse [75]
Durova thenasks Mattisse to extend more good faith (on M's talk page)
M's response: the only issue is a clique of editors
Mattisse did strike the bad faith comments the following day [76], but her "apology" was a little lacking - I regret saying that any of the editors that posted in defence of the other article would post in mistaken defence of this one

Mattisse personalizes some conflicts

Mattisse frequently comments on the editor, not the content. "That is why I am surprised that finally in March Casliber is just now getting to the library, having made this one of the premises of the RFC against me"

For a very recent example (May 9) of this type of behavior, see this thread: User_talk:Viriditas/Archive_27#Your_change_to_Pisces_V. It shows Mattisse misinterpreting the rules of DYK, displaying ownership of an article, personalizing a conflict and essentially creating a problem where none actually exists.

you are being unnecessarily inconsiderate of me
It means that much to you to deny me a little pleasure?
if that is worth banning me from Wikipedia, then please have your say at Arbitration. (per the pattern, banning had never been mentioned before Mattisse brought this up)

Simultaneously, Mattisse conducted a similar discussion at Template Talk:DYK [77], where she again showed persecution complex tendencies: I would like to change it back, but don't want to get into trouble. Even after she was assured that her hook was okay, she continued to badger Viriditas on his talk page.

Mattisse divides editors into "friends" or "enemies"

[78]
[79]
[80]
[81] - divisions made sometimes on who posts on which user talk page
Frequently keeps lists of people she is unhappy with on her talk page, or copies/links to other talk page posts she considers inflammatory on her own talk page (yet there is never any indication she is prepping for an RfC or other dispute resolution)

Mattisse feels personally persecuted by disagreements with other editors

Mattisse's overreactions to some incidents can cause damage to the reputations of other editors.

"I knew they would follow me around and note my every entry..."
[82] feels persecuted because of her reviews, so won't do them any more
"I am frightened of posting near you" (to User:Ottava Rima, who has often been one of her defenders)
[83]

and assumes the resulting ANI thread about her comment is due only to where she posted it "I personally do not get involved in AN/I drama and must refuse any offer that has that potential. Posting on your pages appears to have that result." (did not understand that it was her comment that led to the ANI thread)

"I was not prepared and was not skilled enough to act as you wanted me to, and I therefore displeased you" - thought Geometry Guy not just another editor, but someone in power that she could not go against
After asking for advice, she informs the editor "am I free to have my own views or do I have to follow your POV as expressed above?"
[84]
[85]

Mattisse makes personal attacks

Mattisse believes that she does not make personal attacks. [86] and asks others not to comment on her motivations [87]

This post starts well (admonishing another editor for personal attacks) and degenerates into similar behavior [88]
personal comments toward Malleus on another's RfA [89] culminates in a note on other user's talk page about Malleus's character [90]

Mattisse has acknowledged some of her problems

Mattisse often asks for sanctions on herself

These are just a few of the instances where Mattisse has explicitly stated that she would like to be banned. She has also, many, many, many times suggested that she should be topic-banned from FAC, FAR, GAN, or DYK.

At her most recent RfC, she proposed a block on herself. In the ensuing dicussion, another editor asked While I agree that no one seems to want Mattisse banned, save Mattisse herself, at what point does the community call her bluff? - Mattisse responded in the thread under this post, so she ought to understand that if she kept asking for sanctions, someone might be likely to mete them out.

I can't tell whether Mattisse is serious about this or just being dramatic. Regardless, these types of requests often derail any attempt to discuss her behavior. It is difficult to explore solutions and measures that can be taken to help her if she will only discuss her wish to be banned.

Note also that Mattisse seems to understand that she must be warned before being blocked "Before anyone could block me, I would have to be warned" (23 Nov 2008)

Evidence presented by MastCell

Res ipsa loquitur

Wikipedia:Editor review/Cosmic Latte. This was my first exposure to Mattisse that I can recall. I think her conduct there speaks for itself, so I won't elaborate here. If it's tl;dr, just take a look at the questions posted by Mattisse in the "Review from Mattisse" section.

Since then, I've seen this corrosive pattern of interaction repeated again and again. I'm sure Mattisse does good work here; certainly there's no shortage of people vouching for that. Maybe, as Brad suggested, there is a way to keep the good work that she does while jettisoning the negative.

I accept that Mattisse is sensitive, and I am intentionally and substantially limiting the evidence I present here in deference to that sensitivity. The central problem could be simply resolved: if Mattisse extended a fraction of the consideration to other peoples' feelings that she evidently demands for her own, there would be no issue. I doubt ArbCom can mandate that sort of empathy, though, and I don't have any bright ideas. MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Durova

See User:Durova/Mattisse evidence (moved due to length). Context is necessary here. As I explained to Sam Korn at user talk,[91] in the absence of context I assumed substantial good faith of Mattisse earlier this year due to her excellent content work. Other editors who had interacted with her longer were more jaded. The subpage explains why my good faith was ultimately withdrawn.

Evidence presented by Philcha

That GAR

As Geometry Guy noted above, the flashpoint has been Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1. At some stage during the GAR, someone removed the GAR template from Talk:Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology. At some point an attempt was made to reinstate the link to the GAR page, but the link was invalid as at yesterday evening, see my request for other GA reviewers to contribute. It had been fixed by the time I started on this evidence.

On discovering that the link had been removed, Mattisse complained at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1 that the likely result was that only supporters of the article would get to know about the GAR. Mattisse requested my "honest opinion" on whether an article should "should have a "Critical reception" or "Critical analysis" or similar section to pass GA". "honest opinion" was not an empty phrase because Mattisse knows me well enough to expect nothing else.

When I "arrived" the main contributors to the GAR besides Mattisse were supporters of the article's GA status - Awadewit, who appears to be the main recent editor of the article; Cirt; and Fainites, who had recently passed the article as a GA. Cirt almost immediately pointed out that Mattisse had invited me, but declined an invitation to explain the implications of that comment.

When I looked at the GAR I saw the situation was already tense - and also that Mattisse had made some attempts to calm the situation down, including at least one apology for her part in a heated exchange. Since then some of the more heated parts have been snipped out and pasted at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1, so you'll have to flip-flop between this and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1 to see who said what, when, to whom.

Unlike Mattisse and the article's supporters, I saw the book that is the article's subject as a collection of quasi-political essays about Scientology rather than as literature. From that point of view I concluded that the article was incomplete without comments on its reception and influence or lack of it, and therefore failed to meet WP:WIAGA's "broad coverage" criterion. As Geometry Guy said above, no one reviewer can dictate the result of a GAR. However I believe it was justifiable for Mattisse to initiate the GAR, since there was reasonable doubt about whether the article is GA standard. I have also just checked Mattisse's opening comments in the GAR and think they were moderate, constructive and positive.

My other interactions with Mattisse

Mattisse was one of 3 GA reviewers whose conduct of reviews encouraged me to submit articles for GA review (the first 3 just happened) and then to start doing GA reviews myself. IIRC she has now reviewed 3 articles that I have submitted, and these reviews have been amicable and sometimes fun. I am certainly not a passive "reviewee" and sometimes respond firmly to comments, but explaining as clearly and politely as possible my reasons for the item that was commented on. In these cases we have reached agreement quickly and without any fuss. --Philcha (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Fainites

Long term grudges and pointy reviews

First encounter with Mattisse, the FAC of Reactive attachment disorder. I am putting this in, not by way of complaint, but because it is relevent to subsequent behaviour. I was new to FAC and received a great deal of careful help from respected editors. Halfway through the nom. Mattisse appeared and within a short period of time, on a subject she plainly knew little about, had implied that the article was written from PMIDs, accused the editors of "cherry-picking" journal papers, brought in comparisons to other articles and disputes I knew nothing of and claimed, quite wrongly, everything in this article was covered in other articles and implied that papers by leading names in the field were thrown together by a bunch of undergraduates. She was asked to explain. She was so disruptive that the nom had to be restarted. I thought she was amazingly offensive. To be fair, Mattisse subsequently apologised for her behaviour and copyedited by way of apology. I e-mailed her some sources which changed her views somewhat about the subject and we had a pleasant, chatty exchange on the talkpage before she made some odd remarks about age regression and disappeared. So all was well.

Second significant encounter was at the Attachment therapy GAR 10 months later. Mattisse appeared at the point at which it was being passed, early on 22nd October, saying she had concerns. I responded at 18.59 saying there was alot in what she was saying and would give a response on Friday. I added more later that evening asking some questions for clarification and for more time, being busy in RL. The reviewer DanaBoomer agreed this approach and told me she had asked for a little time. I was therefore somewhat surprised when Mattisse started the GAR late that night. Note the GAR includes a PA to the effect that having made 900 edits I don't have the perspective to sort the article. On going to her talkpage I was disturbed to find this, this this and this and this followed not long after by this and this. Following the conversation to Malleous talkpage reveals this and this. Note the decision to list straight away taken just after she had agreed to give me time to address her concerns [92].

The first point she had made about pseudoscience is dishonest and malicious. It implies previous exchanges about AT with me being reluctant to ackowledge it was a pseudoscience. In fact, not only had there been no exchanges with Mattisse in relation to the AT article and AT being a psuedoscience apart from this and my reply. I had been part of an arbitration removing attachment therapist socks promoting AT, had an exchange on the talkpage about finding a source naming it as a pseudoscience, and finally found a source doing just that in February 08. The purpose of this post was presumably to give the reader a certain prejudicial view of me as a promoter of pseudoscience.

Secondly, I seemed to have walked into some long term issues Mattisse had with SandyGeorgia, the implication being that I was part of some sort of group or one of her "boys". I thought Mattisses post about SandyGeorgia was one of the most disturbing things I had seen on Wikipedia.

Thirdly, there was a conspiracy theory type "GA -v- FA" tone about the whole thing, relating to a supposed agenda by a group of editors, see this too on the same page.

Fourthly, she misrepresented the reviewers position in a particularly offensive way as having simply passed something because of "interference" by SandyGeorgia. In fact, SandyGeorgia's "interference" consisted of adding a dab box and this after the reviewer asked me to remove cites from the lead. The reviewer objected to this characterisation by Mattisse of her actions and her haste.

My first instinct was to have nothing to do with the GAR given the posts on Mattisses talkpage. It is impossible to take such a review seriously against the background of such pointy, disturbing and malicious posts. I finally decided to take part in the review because not to do so seemed rude to the reviewer.

My suspicion however, that Mattisse would pursue delist at all costs was confirmed when I answered, dealt with and made changes according to all her substantive points, which she ignored completely, commented on a section which she plainly had not read at all. She listed a whole bunch of fresh concerns which were frankly nonsense and unconstructive (such as misleading info about the length of the article, citing readable prose for the comparison but the whole thing for this one - something pointed out by another editor later), and finally, having bitterly complained throughout that the article mentioned mainstream positions as well as pseudoscience, supported a good faith reviewer who supported attachment therapy and thought it should be portrayed as middle ground and cutting edge, and "reflect the entire spectrum from mainstream to fringe".

I should say I had no issues with the other reviewers whether they supported or not. I fully accept writing pseudoscience articles is very difficult and perhaps I'll never make it. However, I should also say that GeometryGuys sterling and good faith efforts to keep the peace and reduce conflict on this and the Ali's Smile GAR don't really cut the mustard. When activities leading to listing are so clearly pointy and malicious, ignoring that and pretending its not happening and moving unpleasant allegations to a different page merely puts a temporary, inadequate sticking plaster over a deep seated, infected wound.

Mattisse has also perpetuated the myth of interference by SandyGeorgia in GA reviews causing the article to be promoted. Other editors here have given these diffs.

Finally, the attachment therapy GAR was cited by Casliber at the RfC. I later added some more diffs. These related to the diffs added here about here pre-GAR talkpage activities. I responded to yet more overblown claims about "ethical" concerns. I made it plain the AGF/NPA points were my concern, not the delisting. She seems to believe that her behaviour was justified because the article was delisted. Since then, Mattisse claimed I had a "conflict of interest" because of the earlier GAR and effectively that my contribution to the GAR on an article I reviewed was in bad faith.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.