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)

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 assumes bad faith, misrepresents other's comments

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.

• 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."

Mattisse makes divisive comments

All the below from User talk:Malleus Fatuorum

• "I am no longer afraid of you people."[37]
• "don't bother to answer, as this page is no longer on my watchlist. Just checked back this time, as I knew you have nothing else to do but respond. Sorry, but I have lost respect."[38]
• "the time I spent as a "victim" and not being obnoxious and fighting back was a very much worse time than now. My nemesis and friends remind me of gaggles of gossiping teenage girls."[39]
• Uses the edit summary "bend over and pucker up".[40]
• During the above, she also claimed to be unwatching his talking page multiple times ([41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]), yet she continued to post over the course of days.

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.

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 [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] etc., 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. [57].

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: [58]. Cirt (talk · contribs), joined by Awadewit (talk · contribs), argues in a similarly intense and at times deliberately high-handed and needling manner: [59]. Mattisse initiates GAR: [60][61][62]

Cirt files an AN/I complaint on May 5th

[63] This alleges "wikihounding" of Awadewit even though the first contact between Awadewit and Mattisse has barely been 24 hours prior. 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.

The GAR for Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology is underway here: [64] 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: [65]

As I see it, Mattisse correctly called out two POV pushers. 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)

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. In addition, she has copy-edited and reviewed many FAs (links coming). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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 achive anything. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

1. When faced with criticism of selective sourcing, Cirt responded multiple times ([66], [67], [68], [69]) by stating that no further sources could be found.
2. Matisse did not respond with additional sources in support of her argument. Instead, she resorted to criticizing the content of the book itself.
3. 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 ([70]) 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)

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.