Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence

Mattisse and POINTyness

Mattisse has already acknowledged and apologized for violations of WP:POINT. I have great difficulty in seeing why the specifics of how Mattisse has violated this guideline are required after they have themselves admitted violating it. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is more of a technical matter. The evidence section is not just used for determining ways to correct the problems but also for evidence as to the facts surrounding the case. Now, I would recommend submitting evidence saying the same as above, so that we could get that put into the facts of the case. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's comment is correct as a general matter, but please see also my comments at the top of the workshop page. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to either reproduce or provide a link to Mattisse's earlier comment, or is it assumed that the arbitrators will see it on the request page? John Carter (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it, and hopefully other arbitrators will have as well, but a link wouldn't hurt. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've contacted Mattisse about how to proceed here, as I don't want to do anything on my own. I am however concerned that the more recently added evidence by Tex also seems to be, in effect, accusing Mattisse of specific things that they have already acknowledged doing in general. Is this sort of thing going to continue, and, if it is, to what point? John Carter (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the problems that may be investigated here is whether Mattisse has a history of acknowledging wrongdoing and apologizing, yet continuing to display the same behavior in later instances. If no evidence is forthcoming of that type of thing, then I wouldn't have any objection to removing some of this to the talk page. Karanacs (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I could actually understand that, if any of the evidence put forward actually made such a claim. To date, none of the parties have made any sort of statement or produced any sort of evidence to that effect. If they intend to do so, I sincerely hope that they do so soon. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done so. Durova^Charge! 23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope everyone can understand the position that the Arbitration Committee is in here. On the one hand, we need to have before us the facts we need to come to an informed conclusion as to what result is best for the encyclopedia and for the community (of which Mattisse and all the other editors involved here are a part). At the same time, we want to handle this difficult situation with discretion, sensitivity, and humanity. Beyond that, I really can't say too much more about what people should and shouldn't do, except to urge that that all please be respectful of these considerations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts on this case

Mattisse has certainly contributed positively to this project, a fact which I believe is undisputed here. However, there also seems to be a pattern which has been established over time of unpleasant interactions with her. I do not believe that Mattisse is acting in malice, taking into account that by her own admission she seems to have had some difficulties which ocassionally impeded her ability to contribute constructively.

I think what is needed here is not a remedy nor a warning, but a compromise of trust between Mattisse and all parties which have interacted with her in the past. Mattisse must accept that there is no conspiracy against her, and that the community should likewise acknowledge that she is a good-faith contributor. The Arbitration Committe can act as a guiding authority here by examining some past incidents in order to determine what is or isn't acceptable behavior, bearing in mind that Mattisse is an established editor who is struggling to figure out the best way to work within the system. In the end, all sides want the same thing: a fear-free environment where editors can cooperatively build an encyclopedia. ←Spidern→ 04:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, I think there have been prior agreements of trust between M and the community, I think that was the decision at the end of the last RfC, but it hasn't worked. It's similar to the point someone made above of M apologizing and promising not to do X, then problems come up again. Sticky Parkin 10:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Spidern. What is not in dispute here is Mattisse's valuable contributions to the project. The area of concern is how Mattisse reacts in certain situations. What would be worth examining closely is Mattisse's behaviour now compared with 3 months ago, 6 months ago, 12 months ago. My impression, and anecdotal evidence from others, is that Mattisse is making an effort not to respond negatively in conflict situations. What works against Mattisse is her past behaviour which has led to an "oh no not Mattisse again" reaction, which can be exploited in a conflict to paint Mattisse in worse colours than is true. The incident which led to this ArbCom is a good example. Mattisse challenged the integrity of a Good Article and brought it to Review. In response the GAR was reverted (out of process) by Jennavecia and Mattisse requested Jennavecia to restore the GAR. Jennavecia insulted Mattisse during the negotiation, and then brings that conversation to ArbCom as evidence of Mattisse assuming bad faith when the opposite could appear to be case to observers. As it is how Mattisse handles conflict situations that is at the heart of this ArbCom - it would do to look at how people exploit Mattisse's past reputation in order to overcome Mattisse's challenges to the integrity of an article. SilkTork *^YES! 07:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's your interpretation of the events, which you've now posted on at least two pages. Mattisse's first response to me, after I explained my actions and my reason for not reverting them, was to be sarcastic and to assume bad faith. You've left that out of your summary of events, which is why it's best to let the arbitrators and others read and evaluate the evidence themselves, rather than detail your own interpretation of the events on multiple pages. لennavecia 12:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope this case looks at the behavior of all parties. If there is evidence that other editors are baiting Mattisse or assuming bad faith about her and causing some of these situations, I think it imperative that this evidence be presented here. Karanacs (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. As for my involvement, at the very beginning of my evidence on this exchange, I linked to the full discussion, and I encourage everyone to read it in full and draw their own conclusions. لennavecia 15:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that this "trust" plan is strange: you cannot create trust by judicial fiat. Mattisse will (rationally) not trust other editors with whom she has had negative experiences previously, and those editors will (rationally) not trust her, until a sufficient number of positive experiences have built up to overshadow the bad. For myself, I suspect that Mattisse is in so much pain that on occasion she will say anything to make editors leave her alone. Consequently, I don't -- and can't -- "trust" her statements that she will "never" do something again, because she's shown time and again that "never" frequently means "for the next few weeks". So if ArbCom says to "trust" that Mattisse will stop working with FAs, I'll believe it -- just as soon as Mattisse has a demonstrated a flawless track record of not working with those articles -- for, oh, about two years straight. Doubtless she would say the same thing about many editors: she'll "trust" that they'll never say anything unpleasant to her just as soon as they've demonstrated a 100% positive track record for a very long stretch. Trust cannot be imposed from the outside, and it cannot be hurried along. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Geometry Guy's evidence

"My response was to underreact and focus on the issues, not the conflict." - that is exactly the philosophy that I advocate and try to follow as well. Over-reaction in any dispute obscures the original issues. While not everyone can restrain themselves to do this, if it is possible to do it, and encourage others to do so as well (if the dispute involves more than one person), things can improve rapidly in most discussions. Sometimes conduct is bad enough (or frequent and recurring enough) that it can't be ignored, but if it can, then the option to bite your tongue and ignore the conduct in front of you should not be dismissed out of hand. Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. The trick though is getting people to do this themselves. Forcing people to ignore bad conduct is ugly and can push gagged users into creating sockpuppet accounts out of madness and frustration. SilkTork *^YES! 07:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've updated and fleshed out my evidence. It isn't always easy to underreact and focus on the issues, not the conflict. I don't think I handled the disagreement with Mattisse perfectly, but it turned out ok in the long run. In other circumstances, I may not have managed so well. My evidence may suggest an implicit criticism of Jennavecia for reverting Mattisse's GAR. However, I think her actions were not unreasonable responses to the situation, even if I believe that reverting the GAR was unnecessary.

Concerning the question of responding to bad conduct from editors with a reputation, I see two reasonable approaches: one, the editor has a bad reputation, so I will be tolerant and assume good faith; two, the editor has a bad reputation, so that is their problem and I will do what I can to encourage them to overcome it. I prefer to take the latter viewpoint. Geometry guy 22:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

How long have you known Mattisse?

I've noticed that the people who defend Mattisse mainly are people who haven't known her for long. Also, I'd like to know why after several arbitrations, requests, etc. that nothing has changed? Is it healthy for an editor to make 300+ edits in a day? - Cyborg Ninja 00:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've known Mattisse for over a year. Mattisse and I have not had any positive interaction. Neutral and negative. However, I am sure that in comparison I am in the "defend Mattisse" camp. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse has not been the subject of arbitration before. It is also not appropriate to speculate on "Is it healthy for an editor to make 300+ edits in a day" - copyeditors frequently make many small edits to an article, which can inflate the edit count, but makes it easier for other editors to see what has been changed. Karanacs (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Karanacs. Durova^Charge! 15:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, agree with Karanacs. A string of minor edits or vandal reversions skews edit counts wildly; here is what 1000 edits in 1 hr 50 mins looks like, for example. –  iridescent  15:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that your bot, Iridescent, or did you actually make 1000+ edits in under 2 hours? - Cyborg Ninja 22:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Iridescent actually made 1000+ edits in under 2 hours; with the aid of Huggle, of course, which is not a bot. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've known Mattisse since January 2007. Mattisse managed to annoy me more than any other person on Wikipedia. We had an ugly fight. I am not proud of the things I said. Almost certainly my lowest moment on the project. Mattisse apologised to me, which I grudgingly accepted and offered my apology to her. However, I nursed a sore point against her mainly as I felt she had driven me to behave badly. I didn't like the way I had reacted, and blamed her. Our paths would cross now and again, and we would be cautious with each other - neither provoking the other. When the RFC came up earlier this year I was of the same mind as many others - "Oh no, not Mattisse again!" I looked into the incident that provoked that RFC to see what she had done. What surprised me was that she had worked very hard in good faith, and with the best interests of the project at heart, and that it was the behaviour of the others toward her that I found unacceptable. Not that the people were not provoked. But, same as with my conflict with Mattisse, it takes two to tango. I sorted my conflict with Mattisse, and I have no problems with her. Geometry Guy on this page also reveals he had a conflict with Mattisse that he sorted in his way, and he stills works with her. It is the nature of Wikipedia that we have conflicts - and the more intense the arena in which one works the more likely one is to come into conflict. Mattisse is more passionate about the project than most, and dedicates an enormous amount of time and energy here, often in very intense arenas and mainly without conflict. When conflict does happen, then it is both sides that need to examine what they are doing to cool matters down and resolve the issue. I am not impressed with those who inflame the situation by stirring up past behaviour, and who exploit reputations, and call in inquests on the person rather than the issue. Mattisse can appear to be out of control when stressed, but she does respond to positive interactions. Mattisse is not perfect, but her bad moments do appear to spring out of the way she is handled during a conflict, which is something for all of us to reflect on. SilkTork *^YES! 23:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing on several points. Mattisse's actions under stress are by no means randomly "out of control". Those actions exhibit repetitive patterns and there is substantially no progressive learning curve. Am I wrong? Can you say that on thus-and-such occasion in 2008, Mattisse did X in interaction with other editors and you gave her feedback and nothing like it ever happened again? Did she really reform, or did she enter dialog with the people she considered sympathetic and a few months later initiate basically the same problem again? Durova^Charge! 23:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I phrased myself poorly. This sentence: "Mattisse can appear to be out of control when stressed, but she does respond to positive interactions." should be phrased: "Mattisse can appear to be out of control when stressed; however, as she does respond to positive interactions, much depends on how she is approached during the initial stress point of the conflict." Rather longer I know, but that was my point. There are people here, example from Philcha below, who do report that Mattisse responds well to positive interactions. I'm not going to say that Mattisse is always right in her disputes, but I do feel that evidence shows that her concerns are always legitimate and if people assumed good faith about Mattisse and didn't fly off into "Oh no, not Mattisse again, let's call a RFC" then we would see rather less of the drama. I appreciate that people can get tired with Mattisse's attention to detail, but if people paid more attention to that detail and rather less to Mattisse then there might be less drama and more improvements to the encyclopedia. Let us always focus on the issue, not on who is raising the issue. SilkTork *^YES! 11:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've known Mattisse since Sept 2008. She politely says what she thinks, I say politely what I think, if there's a difference of view we talk it through, no drama at all. A few times in the last few months each of us asked the other for help - usually a 2nd opinion; I also asked Mattisse to help an editor w copyediting on an article I was GA reviewing. --Philcha (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Where, SilkTork, is there any evidence of Oh no, not Mattisse again, let's call a RFC. Are there any other RfCs we don't know about? It seems to me, given the evidence, that there has been a remarkable lack of efforts to pursue various forms of what is euphemistically called "dispute resolution". I suspect this is due to respect for her good work - always freely and plentifully given, and a disinclination to get involved in wikidrama. I also wonder to what extent people who have been unfortunate enough to incur Mattisses enmity hope that if they just keep away and keep their heads down they will be forgotten.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for extension of evidenciary phase

I think most people can understand how I did not see it as being particularly useful to use my limited evidence space until I had some idea what evidence there was to respond to. I had, personally, been intending to expand the evidence section on Friday and Saturday, thus giving others the opportunity to present their evidence first, and give me some idea what all I had to respond to. Unfortunately, some unexpected factors arose recently in regards to the matter of my recently deceased brother. The memorial service is scheduled for tomorrow, but some unexpected situations arose yesterday which needed to be faced quickly. The memorial itself will probably take up almost all of Sunday. The legal matters are scheduled to be addressed on Tuesday, and I imagine that will occupy most of that day as well. Given the recent unexpected developments, I can't be particularly sure that today and Monday will not have unexpected demands placed on my time as well. Therefore, if there are no objections, I would request that if required I be allowed through Wednesday next week if required to complete the presentation of Mattisse's evidence. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, of course. First things first. Please accept my sympathies. Durova^Charge! 16:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no rush whatsoever John. As far as I'm concerned, (and I expect everyone else), you take as much time as you need.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. I have no issue whatsoever with a time extension for this. لennavecia 19:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. An extension to Wednesday seems fine here. Even when a proposed decision has been drafted, there will still be time to work at things around the edges, and I'm assuming the draft will be workshopped before voting. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I propose we slow down or suspend our discussions for a couple of days to respect John_Carter's need to attend to more immediate priorities. Jayen466 13:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse and promised changes

Several people have mentioned that Mattisse has at times made pledges or promises of changed behaviour and then not followed through on that, or has changed her mind. Evidence of this would be key, in my mind, to judging any voluntary pledges made by Mattisse as a result of this case. Would it be possible to have some evidence presented focused on this aspect of the case? I see bits of it scattered here and there and in the most recent RfC, but nothing drawing things together yet. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's not already done tomorrow afternoon, I'll work on this. لennavecia 04:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree this is a key issue. Shouldn't be too hard to track down. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Differing opinions of Mattisse's conduct

One point I made when accepting the case, and which I'm seeing in the evidence as well, is that some people only see parts of Mattisse's behaviour. This is partly related to how extensive or wide-ranging an editor's experience of Mattisse is. To help arbitrators judge that side of things, could people say somewhere where their primary encounters with Mattisse have been? Both direct interaction and just reading pages at the time but not participating. I'd be particularly interested to hear from people who have only seen a "bad" side to Mattisse's conduct, to see if their opinion has changed from seeing some of the good things said here. And vice-versa as well: have any of those who say good things about her been surprised at some of the other behaviour presented here, that they were maybe unaware of? And finally, those who already had mixed views, but came down on one side or the other (or are undecided) - how much of the evidence here is new to you and has it changed your opinion? What I'm trying to get a feel for here is how much the opinion of those presenting evidence is determined by whether they've had only one or two bad encounters, or one or two good encounters, or an extensive history of editing and working with Mattisse (and maybe starting off with a poor opinion of her conduct that changed to understanding; or starting off with a good opinion that changed for the worse). And to Mattisse herself, if John could pass on the question, can you explain why people have such differing opinions of your conduct? Is it all down to other people, to their reactions to your reviews, or your reactions to their reactions, or is it in part due to you behaving differently with different people? Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you want this here or on the evidence page?Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What you've said below is fine. Carcharoth (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have given a background to my involvement with Mattisse above in the How long have you known Mattisse? section. Would you like me to move that statement elsewhere? SilkTork *^YES! 09:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Either a new section below or a link to the previous section, please (or a diff). Carcharoth (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC) (added a link myself)

fainites

FAC on RAD, early 08. GAR on AT October 08. Once I was familiar with her name I noticed her around and noted vicious spats with some editors and good solid review/copyedit work elsewhere. I saw the MDD FAC but decided not to get involved due to WP:REDRAGTOABULL. I saw the Buckingham Palace FAR and wished I'd done on AT what Giano did there - ie decline to take part. I have noted other FARs or articles tagged for FAR by Mattisse which other editors alleged as being targeted. I have seen her frequently claim she will no longer take part in GA/FA or DYK, sometimes asking other editors to take over her reviews, only to shortly reappear. I have tried to avoid Mattisse and scaled down my work on psychology articles considerably. Co-editing on Rudolf Wolters was an error on my part. To give you an idea of my conclusions from all this - after reviewing Ali's Smile, I noticed Mattisse had appeared on the talkpage and at the peer review and that the dispute involved a separate dispute with Awadewit on a different article. I assumed therefore that there would shortly be a GAR against Awadewits article. It followed within hours. I was told of this GAR, as is right and proper to the reviewer, but had in fact already found it due to guessing, based on my understanding of Mattisses behaviour, that that is what she would do. Predictably Mattisses criticisms are partly overblown and unconstructive. Predictably GA reviewers have taken Mattisses review at face value. Predictably an FA -v- GA feeling was promoted by Mattisse.

If one can guess what articles Mattisse will review based on who the editor is rather than the article, it does not bode well. I am not surprised by the evidence adduced here of Mattisses behaviour, unfortunately not even of the diff produced by CyborgNinja. Neither am I surprised by the fervent support given to her by the editors who value her extensive good work. Nor do I doubt that Mattisse genuinely believes that she is the victim and that this is a most unhappy situation.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If one editor commenting at two articles another editor has contributed to is "wikihounding", then I have missed out on a lot of "wikihounding" complaints I could have made. Jayen466 22:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Jayen - Carcharoth asked for this information. I have not mentioned "Wikihounding" myself. I have provided evidence in the relation to the specific incidents in which I was involved or of which I was aware. Fainites ^barleyscribs 06:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466

I first came into proper contact with Mattisse last October, when she reviewed Idries Shah for GA. I was very impressed with her feedback and thought she made the article a lot better. I think I still have her talk page in my watchlist from then. In January, she started GA-reviewing Millennium '73, a very embattled article at the time, and made a hugely impressive start, earning the respect of both "sides" at that article (I believe), suggesting clear improvements. Unfortunately, the 3rd RfC intervened and she dropped out of that review, much to my disappointment. I looked at the controversies then, to understand why she had dropped out. Then, in February, she reviewed Scientology in Germany, covered in evidence elsewhere. I followed the user talk discussions between her and Geometry guy at the time, and noticed one or two other editors who'd often show up to comment, and the dynamics involved. Jayen466 22:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs

Note, some of this is copied from my evidence My first memory of encoutering Mattisse is at FAC (both in reviewing articles and at WT:FAC) at some time in 2008. I am heavily involved in FAC and its related pages WP:WIAFA and WP:FA, although I do not frequent FAR. I have watchlisted the talk pages of Mattisse and many editors who are active at FAC/GA/DYK, and through those pages I have seen Mattisse interact both calmly and professionally, as well as, in my opinion, inappropriately.

Throughout the latter half of 2008, I noticed that Mattisse's comments at WT:FAC were not always given in a manner I thought appropriate, and I tried multiple times to calmly discuss my concerns with her. When this seemed to have no effect on those behaviors, I signed on as one of the certifiers of her RfC in January.

I have never worked directly on an article with Mattisse, nor has she ever reviewed or copyedited an article in which I have been heavily involved. I do have great respect for her copyediting skills.[1] For the most part, I think that she is a fine reviewer in our content processes.

While I have not been previously familiar with every interaction that has been laid out in the evidence, I have not been surprised by any of the evidence presented, either positive or negative, nor am I surprised that some editors have not seen the negative. I don't think any editors have said that they do not see the positives of her contributions. Karanacs (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Jennavecia

Dates for the following are in EST

Having become "wiki-friends" with Malleus Fatuorum, I've had his talk page on my watchlist for some time. I had seen Mattisse there a few times, but never paid much attention as we rarely, if ever, posted to the same section.

On 7 December, Mattisse posted in a section of Malleus' talk page that I was involved in regarding him wanting to leave the project following the Brenda Song GAR. I was in the process of building a time line to figure out exactly what had gone down with this particular GAR. The custodian of the article, Gimmetrow, was the focus of my time line, and SandyGeorgia was also involved. Mattisse had been called in as a second opinion months before. Her comment was to ask "He is leaving because of one admin who vandalises and one self-important, bigwig editor who supported the vandal for personal reasons?" The admin being Gimmetrow and the bigwig being Sandy. This, of course, did nothing to help the situation. To lighten the situation, I replied with humor. The following day, Mattisse posted this summary of events to my talk page. I didn't find it to be an accurate overview, so asked for more information. From there it sort of went down hill, when Sandy called out Mattisse for her comments and exchanges were made on both my talk page and Malleus' (maybe others). I can post these sections upon request.

Anyway, ultimately, Mattisse made several comments (link includes full discussion to that point), which resulted in me responding with this and placing this warning (link includes full discussion) on her talk page. She posts a new section on Mal's talk page claiming I'd threatened to block her when, in fact, I'd only stated the situation and her disruption of it was "not worth a block." I declined to respond to this section, as I saw nothing productive coming from it.

The next incident I got involved in with Mattisse was again on Malleus Fatuorum's talk page on 23 December. Mattisse posted this to his talk page. Despite our previous interaction, I was surprised by both the tone and the message. She later followed up with this. I think this serves as a superb example of Mattisse possibly having good points, but delivering them in a completely inappropriate manner. After a couple of calm responses from Mal, she further personalizes the situation with this. I did not comment until that point, following Mattisse claiming to have unwatched the page. Thinking the matter was then resolved, I posted a continuation of an old joke to Mal. Following his expected reply, Mattisse rejoins to call me a "block-happy admin" and uses the edit summary: "Threats of incivility blocking? Where is your usual rant about block- happy admins - looks like you got one patrolling your page!" There was, of course, a reference to the first incident in October. Malleus and I both dismissed her comment with me pointing out that she'd said she'd dewatched the page and telling her to run along. She did not comment further. لennavecia 22:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

SilkTork

In addition to [2] above.

I have known Mattisse since January 2007. I offered her assistance as part of AMA. That went wrong and I blamed Mattisse. And I got very angry when she later criticised me. Some exchanges and links to fuller details here: User_talk:SilkTork/AMA_Archive/Mattisse. Even though aware of her, and sometimes encountering her warily, I didn't get engaged again until the January RFC. I left an initial comment on the RFC which explained that I recognised that my hurt from that encounter in January 2007 was such that I questioned my ability to be fair. However, after reading Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder/restart, I left this comment: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse_3#Outside_view_by_SilkTork. From that I started to see Mattisse in a new light. People have spats and disagreements when editing in tense areas (such as FAR). However, it appeared that there was a disproportionate amount of blame being directed to Mattisse, and that she was expected to carry an ever increasing and carefully noted bundle of albatrosses around her neck. My English sympathy for the underdog was aroused, and I felt that if people treated Mattisse with more respect - certainly with some of the respect she deserved for the work she was doing - that she would respond favourably. That continuing to treat her with disdain, and to lay the blame around her neck was inappropriate and unworkable. I entered into conversation with Mattisse and discovered no malice in her at all, and eventually I reflected back to MY behaviour during our spat in 2007 and recognised I had been blaming Mattisse for my anger and frustration, though my anger and frustration actually sprang from my unconscious guilt at having handled the incident poorly from the start.

My feeling in this ArbCom is that people are presenting evidence of their spats with Mattisse and are not recognising their own flaws. I'm uncomfortable in using Jennavecia as an example again as I'm aware that could be seen as bullying; however, in as neutral a manner as possible, the diff above [3] which Jennavecia uses as an example of Mattisse's misunderstand ("claiming I'd threatened to block her when, in fact, I'd only stated the situation"), could be read as a threat to block: "If you have beef with Sandy, try mediation (and bring diffs), else let it go. It's not worth a block." Bringing in reference to a block as a warning would be seen by a number of people as a threat in that situation because there was already some bad feeling between the person sending the message and the one recieving it. Added to which, the one sending the message is an admin capable of blocking. It's all a matter of perception. I can see how Jennavecia views the comment as neutral. But I can also see how Mattisse sees the comment as a threat.

I had not intended to get involved in this ArbCom (as it does eat up a lot of my WikiTime). However, I am interested in how people's perceptions differ. And that this ArbCom is mainly about how people percieve Mattisse's comments - rather than any hard evidence of behaviour that is damaging or disruptive to the project. SilkTork *^YES! 11:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Geometry guy

My interactions with Mattisse began in October 2008, although I was aware of her earlier, both because she began contributing significantly to GAN in summer 2008, and also because of occasional interactions with FAC's, WT:FAC and User talk:SandyGeorgia. I understood there to be some friction between Mattisse and FAC, SandyGeorgia in particular.

October 2008 was an argumentative month in the part of wikispace with which I interact. I expect it was everywhere: I blame election fever. Anyway, there was an extensive discussion of short articles at WT:FAC, where I saw more directly some of the tensions between Mattisse and other FAC contributors. Then there was the GAR for Attachment Therapy, where Mattisse came into conflict with Fainites. This came right on top of the Brenda Song GAN fail, where Mattisse gave a second opinion. During the mess that followed (article history edit war and block, and the subsequent fallout and GAR) almost everyone seemed to lose the plot at some point, including myself and many editors I did and still admire. Mattisse's contribution left a negative first impression on me when she commented at Jbmurray's talk page (see also here), but she contributed rather positively to the reassessment, apparently realising that her concerns were unfounded.

In summary then, my initial interactions confirmed some of the things I knew about behaviour at FAC that seemed to border on paranoia, yet also drew my attention to her good intentions and ability regarding content and content analysis. They also suggested strongly that she was not solely to blame for the difficulties she encountered. I have subsequently come to understand why she might have launched such off-base accusations against Jbmurray and myself. As she explains in her own evidence, she is not that familiar with the internet in general, or the way Wikipedia operates in particular. She had some very bad early experiences, yet is also a "wikiaddict" who has been blocked. Insecurity creates tension and fear when one is unsure of another's intentions. Where there have been previous negative interactions, that fear intensifies. Geometry guy 21:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Moni3

As stated in my evidence, Mattisse posted on the talk page of the Everglades article in May 2008. That was our first interaction, and it was brief and amicable.

I have truly one of the awfulest memories ever. Sometimes it takes multiple interactions with an editor for me to remember who they are. Mattisse and I interacted when she commented on the FAC for Harvey Milk. FAC for a nominator can be a very frustrating experience, and my frustration levels with the article were already higher than normal. We had a curt exchange in the FAC; she suggested changes and I made them. A week later, when I saw Mattisse's name on my watchlist, I remembered that I should be stressed out at seeing it, but I could not remember why. This cycle occurred several times: see some comment Mattisse made, get perturbed by it, go away and forget it. Permanent neural pathways were established during her 3rd RfC, however.

My bane and weakness is manipulative behavior. If she displayed outright incivility I would accept it better. Instead, she comes to articles and talk pages aggressively, offends the editors who participate in its construction, and when she meets resistance portrays herself as a wounded victim while simultaneously blaming the people she offended in the first place. It's disingenuous and exhausting.

Mattisse has complained that FAC regulars are against her. It is my assertion that if you walk into a room and announce that everyone in the room has illegitimate motives and they are all against you, you have just created the situation you most fear by maligning the people in the room. That seems rather simple.

I do not want Mattisse to stay away from reviewing articles at FAC, GA, DYK or wherever. She is more than welcome to review any of the articles I write or have written. I welcome the scrutiny because it makes my research and writing stronger. That is what article assessment at Wikipedia should be about. I have more than once considered, even after my neural pathways were established, asking Mattisse to review articles of mine before they go to FAC. However, I do not trust her at this time not to make personal comments about other editors or what she perceives my intentions to be. That gets in the way; I don't trust her article assessment because I cannot trust her to evaluate the article on its merits alone. Its primary author(s) and their past experiences get in the way. Another cycle of distrust. If she can evaluate my contributions on their merits alone, she is welcome to assess anything I put forth. --Moni3 (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Philcha

My interactions with Mattisse have been positive, despite the fact that I think I'm the type of "more confident and knowledgeable editor" Mattisse is accused of having difficulty with. I've commented on the RfArb page that some editors have a defensive-aggressive approach at GARs and FARs because they don't want to lose their status symbols. I also think there's a large element of "give a dog a bad name" here (nothing personal, Mattisse, it's a UK idiom!) and that some editors exploit this while others accept uncritically such negative comments, including some who should know better. The GAR that apparently triggered this RfArb looks like a combination of all these perils. Perhaps I got off to a good start with Mattisse because I'd never heard of her, so had no preconceptions.

I agree that the evidence suggests Mattisse reacts poorly to anything she perceives as hostile, and suspect that's due to a terrible lack of confidence. However it does not require exceptional diplomatic skills to get on well with Mattisse - I'm no diplomat. In the FAR and GAR I analysed on the RfArb page, others were the aggressors and Mattisse's responses to the initial aggression were constructive and as amicable as could reasonably be expected of anyone. --Philcha (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Art LaPella

Matisse has asked me to comment because "One of the things that I have been accused of is disruption of the DYK process", where I have a lot of experience. Based on DYK alone, I wouldn't use the word "disruption" to describe Matisse's contribution to DYK. She (or he? Named after a male artist) is much more melodramatic than most, but this is mitigated by the fact that Matisse is often right. So I'm surprised to find Matisse here. If "disruption" refers to Durova vs. Matisse, you've all read that; it doesn't sound like a big deal when you read only the DYK section, but Durova and Matisse are more familiar with the wider context of that confrontation than I am.

Matisse also said "Therefore, I am wondering if you would be willing to make a statement or suggestion on the arbitration decision page about how to monitor my behavior at DYK should it become disruptive." I can't edit the decision page because the rules are "Only Arbitrators ... may edit the proposed decision page." But sure I could report to whoever if I think Matisse is getting disruptive; but as I said I've seen little evidence of that, except by reading this arbitration. Art LaPella (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Parties

Shouldn't the list of parties to this case include all those who are accused for harassing Mattisse? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, at the discretion of arbitrators, but not necessarily. The request for arbitration was filed by Karanacs, and at that time I was listed only at the suggestion of Mattisse and an arbitrator. Also, as many of the harassers, including the socks in the first RfC, are banned/indefinitely blocked, there's not a lot of point in including them. However, if the arbitrators were to decide that someone else deserved to be included in the arbitration, and possibly its results, they would be free to do so. John Carter (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Mattisse

Mattisse asks: "Is there any evidence that I have disrupted DYK, GA, GAR, FAR, or FAC since the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3 was closed due to inactivity?"

The short answer is yes. The longer answer:

• First of all, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3 was not closed because of "inactivity", exactly. It was closed after Mattisse stated that she would avoid FAC and FARC completely:

ʘ Mattisse: "I believe it is best that I desist completely from any involvement at FAC or FACR. In an effort to close this RFC, I will resolve not edit at FAC and FARC again, nor post on the FAC talk page."

ʘ Mattisse: "Once out of FAC and FARC, I am fine. So this RFC was good in the end, as it enabled me to see that. The outcome was best for me."

• The RfC was closed because it had run its course and generated useful feedback and (apparent) resolution, not because of "inactivity".

ʘ Mailer diablo (closing admin): "This discussion has received its fair share of editors and community input as compared to other similar RfC which may be less. There's even possible solutions being listed, indication of good progress made in the course of the discussion."

• Within a month of the RfC's closure, Mattisse was again active in the areas she had pledged to avoid. Her reasoning for disregarding her pledge from the RfC:

ʘ Mattisse: "The RFC was brought in bad faith. The RFC was closed with no limitations on my behavior."

• Mattisse's actions in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Restoration comedy (after the RfC) could be considered disruptive. Certainly multiple concerns about her behavior there were expressed:

ʘ Note from Risker, dismissed by Mattisse.

ʘ Discussion of a ban from FAR.

In other words, yes, there have been problems related to FAR/FARC since the RfC closed. A bigger issue is the revisionist history that is being provided. I'm not trying to cause additional stress for anyone. However, this cycle is poisonous and there is no hope of breaking out of it unless the basic issues at play, or at least the basic facts readily apparent from diffs and page histories, are acknowledged. Right now, past events are being viewed through the prism of self-justification and projection of bad faith onto anyone remotely critical. There is a pattern of pledges being made in an apparent effort to deflect unwanted scrutiny and then disregarded. I don't see how we can reasonably hope to move forward when this case seems to fit the previous, repetitive pattern so neatly. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A shortened version of this may be better placed on the Evidence page. I've also listed examples of issues at DYK and the FAC talk page. Karanacs (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"The RFC was closed with no limitations on my behavior" is itself an example of misunderstanding Wikipedia's processed: The RfC/U process cannot impose a limitation on any (unwilling) editor. How unfortunate that Mattisse did not choose to abide by the limitations that she voluntarily agreed to there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Mattise's evidence

Without trying to clutter the evidence page to much, I wanted to briefly reply to something in Mattise's evidence section.

"Please see evidence below, presented by User:Tznkai, the admin who blocked me indefinitely without warning, as an example of why I live in fear of arbitrary admin behavior. [4] I have never heard of this admin and he suddenly reverts my talk page without contacting me or making any attempt to explain or educate me as to his reasoning, or even to explain that he is an admin."

Beyond a nitpick that "fear" is a melodramatic verb for the context of a website, my admin bit or lack thereof isn't relevant to whether or not Mattisse should listen to what I have to say, and my reasoning was stated in my edit summary, and then again later on her talk page. Whether or not someone telling you to get a clue is an officially minted admin or not should have little to do with why you listen to them.--Tznkai (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What REALLY needs to be decided

This case is ultimately a question of how Wikipedia ultimately handles poor conduct of its editors. The big question is: does longtime involvement as an editor negate poor conduct? Should Wikipedia turn the other way when this happens, and especially when it happens repeatedly? Over years? As far as I know, situations like this are rare. Of course there are bad editors and vandalism, but this is an established user who started off on a sour note and continues to cause problems with other users. Think of the editors here - both new and established - who have been driven away by Mattisse. We need to look at the big picture. Has anything really changed? Mattisse needs someone who truly wishes to help her, both on Wikipedia and off it. - Cyborg Ninja 06:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)