In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
(For reference: Mattisse ( talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email))
Mattisse is a prolific editor at Wikipedia with over 55,000 edits. However Mattisse also has a history of difficulties in collaborative editing. This history goes back quite some time and manifests itself in many ways, making it difficult to exhaustively list all the incidents. There have been repeated issues at WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAN, WP:GAR, WP:DYK, WP:RFA and Editor review, among other places.
Mattisse continues to make frequent comments insinuating that there is a 'clique' of users around FAC and WP:FAR or a clique of administrators, etc... whose conduct is somehow questionable (Mattisse does not provide evidence of this when asked), and has misrepresented User:Casliber's behaviour as 'bullying' while refusing to engage in discussion on it. Attempts to engage often lead to responses which could be seen as paranoid or manipulative.
This behaviour is highly unpleasant and is not conductive to collegial editing. It is widespread enough that it is not hyperbole to say that it is corroding the morale of several contributors to the English Wikipedia.
Since her earliest days on Wiki, and continuing to the present, there has been evidence of difficulties with collaboration (as an example, note these frustrated comments from FayssalF), understanding Wiki policies and assuming good faith, with repeated charges by her of an "in group" or "gangs of administrators" out to get her, and threats to leave when this is pointed out (a few examples: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]) and a pattern of not taking responsibility for changing her behavior. When apparent sockpuppets were discovered (see Sockpuppets of Mattisse) Mattisse disclaimed the sockpuppet charges, but several were checkuser verified and several (such as ABSmyth ( talk · contribs), Dattat ( talk · contribs), NothingMuch ( talk · contribs), Flinders ( talk · contribs) and GBYork ( talk · contribs)) are consistent with her editing and do not appear likely to have been from her grandchildren (the explanation offered at the time).
Mattisse also has a history of falling out with editors who befriend her: for example, Malleus Fatuorum ( talk · contribs) here, Dineshkannambadi ( talk · contribs) (see this racist personal attack) and SandyGeorgia ( talk · contribs). [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
An example of her difficulties with other editors, extending over an entire archive at User talk:Coppertwig during the Che Guevara FAR, starts here.
What follows are some additional samplings.
Reference: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1
There was consensus to begin restoring Che Guevara to featured status, work proceeding mutually with no issues, the article appeared to be on track to be restored, when Mattisse suddenly took offense but never explained why; [15] [16] the article was defeatured.
Claims that "only a few, select FAC editors are allowed to engage" at WP:FAR
Also, Bad faith assumptions on users Coppertwig and Redthoreau at Che Guevara.
Mattisse submitted Robert A. Heinlein to FAR on November 11. [17] [18] Less than 24 hours later, after a disagreement at Augustan literature (and because the FAR instructions permit only one nomination at a time), she withdrew and deleted the Heinlein FAR to submit Wikipedia:Featured article review/Augustan literature/archive1 instead. ( background from talk page.)
After User:SandyGeorgia apparently happened across an article under GA review when correcting an articlehistory error and provided information about citations in the lead while there, Mattisse referred to the primary editor of the article as obsessed, and erroneously stated several times that the article "got passed because its editor was encouraged during the GA review by an FAC intruder (who jumped into the GA review process, just before the decision was made to pass) and declared the article close to FAC" and made personal attacks, also stating that "SandyGeorgia and company will probably interfere again", even after the editor passing the GA clarified that the pass had nothing to do with the mild comment about citations in the lead. [19] Mattisse has a history of persisting with notions even after she has been told they are not correct.
Repeated bad faith assumptions at Jbmurray ( talk · contribs) who started the GAR:
Edit warring and disruption at Coppertwig's RFA (Mattisse had a lengthy dispute with Coppertwig over Che Guevara): [20]
Unfounded and unstruck oppose at Epbr123's RFA, even after her errors were pointed out by several editors: [21] [22] Mattisse rarely strikes incorrect information, retracts, or apologizes even after her info has been shown incorrect.
Wikipedia:Editor review/Cosmic Latte provides a survey of some particularly nasty behavior from Mattisse. Samples:
To which Cosmic Latte, doing his best to remain civil, replied in part
and MastCell observed to Mattisse:
Featured Article Candidacy for Reactive attachment disorder
Similar to what occurred at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder (as shall be detailed in more depth in a subsequenct section, as a detailed examination is instructive)... and which had to be restarted after Mattisse created at least a dozen sections), Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reactive attachment disorder had to be restarted because of Mattisse's disruption. She frequently went off-topic, discussing other articles, including long lists of tangential items and off-topic commentary, and appeared to misunderstand the difference between the full-text of a journal article and a Pubmed abstract.
Constant disparagement of FAC process, derailing discussions at WT:FAC, leading other editors to suggest an archiving of the entire page: [23], [24]
Mattisse takes issue with the FAC process:
Mattisse disparages other editors as groupies:
Mattisse claims there is a cabal:
Mattisse is then challenged to substantiate the claims:
... but nothing comes of it except for astonishingly bad faith statements.
Later, an editor commments "Mattisse's comments are part of the reason why I don't want to participate at FAC. Instead of focusing on the criteria, its just an excuse to trash others." and finally the entire page is archived.
Mattisse copyedits articles at FAC, but often introduces typographical and grammatical errors (that remain uncorrected until others fix them), some samples:
In a discussion at WP:MEDRS, another example of Mattisse frequently taking offense over misunderstandings and threatening to leave:
Mattisse often uses edit summaries (which remain in the article history even if the content of the edit is removed later) to disparage or attack other editors
While possibly milder than some comments elsewhere, the general negative tone is ongoing, with broad negative aspersions cast after some initial measured comments.
The following is a detailed analysis of a candidacy referred to above, as accounted by Casliber:
My first in-depth interaction with Mattisse came about while nominating major depressive disorder (MDD) at FAC, which was subsequently restarted. I admit that I did goof badly in the sourcing; alot of keen editors had been very helpful along the way and I had visions of a great group effort, but I was sloppy and didn't check the sources as closely as I should. Mattisse was instrumental in the proper sourcing of the article, but I really could have done without the gratuitous remarks along the way - the tone did deteriorate and I did lose my temper (see chronology below), however Mattisse repeated that I harassed and made personal attacks on her. [30] [31] [32] [33] and being 'driven off' [34] I found this hard to take as my impression was that she started the confrontational tone and yet accused me of the same.
A sequence of interactions from the beginning of the FAC until the time of Eusebeus' support as follows:
The next few diffs we talk about rating scales, and Mattisse says this which is odd as the extra ref Casliber got Mattise later removed and Casliber replaced (???)
In the middle, PMID crashed
here Mattisse raises some good points, which had been very tricky to thresh out with good secondary sources, and Casliber did concede we did not get on the religion issue sooner, but it is frustrating to see it frequently talked about yet insanely hard to cite, until Casliber (finally) found one on google after juggling a bit
In between, Garrondo notes the 'non-asked for little speech'
Casliber tried to raise this with Mattisse on her talk page (easier to read from there with Casliber's comments beginning in the middle.
As related above, Mattisse has asserted, or insinuated, that there exist conspiracies/cabals/cliques which operate in various areas, apparently partly to thwart Mattisse, multiple times. For example, thses diffs relate to allegations about users at the Featured Article Candidates page.
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.
This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.
Mattisse needs to assume good faith. Always. She needs to work collegially with other editors. Always. Some example improvements, not intended to be exhaustive...
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.
Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.
Q. I do not intend this question to be pointy. I do not intend it to be an attack. I am not saying that there is a lack of good faith. This does not call into question any of the certifiers of this, especially since I respect those involved. However: Are we able to be neutral here? Is it possible that neutrality is possible when most of the originating complaints are over personal attacks that have an emotional impact upon the psyche, whether conscious or not? I know from my experience that I wished great harm or restraints to be brought upon people who have insulted me. However, I also recognize that such a thing is an emotional response, and neutrality would force me (and everyone else based on universal human qualities) to remove the emotional reactions and try to see what the problem is. Is this just because people are angry at another user, or is this because there is an actual problem? Is this user a net benefit and possibly just someone who steps on a lot of toes in the process? I'm not Mattisse's friend. My only interaction with her has been in conflict. However, I would not want this to turn into a sort of trial because the above user has said many, many things that have upset many people. We have temporary blocks to deal with that kind of thing, and we have abilities to avoid others. Is it possible that this could possibly lead to a lack of neutrality, result in a public shaming, and only cause greater harm in the long run? If so, who is next? When will my turn to be dragged through the mud come about? Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
A. Good question. I created this RfC as I was frustrated with Mattisse's response to suggestions by others to change her ways. Of course I am not neutral, nor are others who have been on the receiving end of her invective, but the idea is that uninvolved people also look at the debate and decide whether or not I am being thin-skined or whether she has a case to answer and what to do about it. The other issue is that many comments taken in isolation are in a grey area with respect to a disruptive or civility threshold, but it is the ongoing stream which is so damaging to morale.
This is like a community forum. Ottava, I get on well with you and can see your point of view often, but I see you have had issues with others. My best suggestion is to look forward and try to make up with people and find some common ground. Maybe we should take this elsewhere. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
(additional answer from Lar) - Ottava, I share your concern. But what is desired here is not a lynching, it is a change in behaviour. Take a look at the desired outcome, above. The things being asked for are things that, really, we expect of every editor... not to disrupt processes, not to disparage processes and people, not to make meanspirited and spiteful edit summaries, and so forth... in short, to be a collegial editor. We are all big boys and girls here, we can take a bit of imperfect conversation, we're not lilies to be protected. But this is not something about someone making one short tempered remark, this is about a pattern of behaviour that has to change. It's long term, it's corrosive, and it's impacting significant swathes of the project. I hope Mattisse heeds this wakeup call and thinks seriously about this. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(comment from SilkTork): I also recognise the concern. I had an encounter with Mattisse when I was her AMA advocate back in January 2007, and the encounter ended up being very distressing. The sores from that are such that I would question my ability to be fair. I would like to think I would be fair, as that is the nature of what most of us do here on Wikipedia - we put our personal feelings aside and look impartially at what is best for the community. We deal with angry people, and respond calmly. We pride ourselves on our ability to not rise to baiting. However, Mattisse is a special case. She has a knack for annoying a wide range of people - she has a way of getting under the skin, winning trust, and then betraying that trust in the most breath-taking manner. This RfC may end up being divided into supportive comments from those who have not experienced the bad side of Mattisse, and less than supportive comments from those who have been hurt. I hope not. But this relevant and important question should keep us alert to that probability. Thanks for asking it. SilkTork * YES! 10:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Q. How did User:Lar get involved in this? I have never had any previous contact with him, never been involved in an article with him, so why would he contact me over SandyGeorgia out of the blue? So many really awful things are happening on Wikipedia, and I am that awful that this important person (I now know from his user page) plunks himself, with no explanation, into my life? It makes no sense. — Mattisse ( Talk) 06:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
A.This question, or a very close variant of it, was asked on my talk page, and answered there at some length. Here's a permalink to the conversation as it exists now: [54]... A recap, though, is that a lot of people talk to me about a lot of things, and I observe a lot of things as well. I've been aware of Mattisse for some time, but a growing number of concerns (some with requests for anonymity) were brought to me recently. My first direct recent interaction was on Mattisse's talk page. I've given that diff, above, characterising it as unsatisfactory. That only increased my concern (the way that particular discussion went, with Mattisse casting aspersions on all sorts of folk, was really a red flag for me) and so I continued to investigate further. And now, here we are. I'll reiterate what everyone else is saying... Mattisse, you need to focus on you, and your behaviour, and where it can be strengthened, instead of on everyone else. This RfC is about your conduct. You are a terrifically valuable, dedicated, bright, energetic contributor with much to offer this project (and much good work to be proud of already). But you have to find a way to be more mellow. That's really all that is being asked of you. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Q. I am willing to release numerous letter both from SandyGeorgia and from Dinesh to prove my points. Is that allowed? SandyGeorgia is far more candid and explicit in letters and I would like to be able to quote from them. Dinesh's letter will also explain how angry and vindictive he was in letters, once he knew I would never copy edit for him again. I am sorry he has esculated his position by commenting here, as many times I have considered contacting him with a conciliatory message. His comments here make that impossible now forever. This RFC is poisonous and will poison Wikipedia in the future. I can never continue here after this. However, I would like all to be revealed before I leave. — Mattisse ( Talk) 07:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
A. It is polite to seek the agreement of the other party to an email before releasing it. And even with their agreement you probably should edit it to remove personally identifying information such as email addresses, real names, addressses and the like before revealing it. Hope that advice is helpful. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}
I am not sure how to respond to the above indictment. Since it begins with my behavior 2 1/2 years ago, I guess I will start there.
Cause One - "Since her earliest days on Wiki, and continuing to the present, there has been evidence of difficulties with collaboration (as an example, note frustrated comments of User:FayssalF"
-- Barnstars --
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar
Awarded to Mattisse for her tireless work on cleaning up countless of articles on small and often overlooked places around the world by Netsnipe (Talk) on 03:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC) |
![]() |
Resilient Barnstar
Awarded to Mattisse for becoming a better editor, even thought the advice was offered in the midst of a dispute. Maury 12:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC) |
Not responsible for Che Guevara
The ALL CAPs issue is a false one. [77] It pertained to inline notes in the article, which one person objected to but others, including Calisber, said he preferred them because they were easier to find. (You are crawling through my archives for this kind of stuff?)
Copyedits - "Mattisse copyedits articles at FAC, but often introduces typographical and grammatical errors (that remain uncorrected until others fix them), some samples."
Responses to more accusatory links
[91], [92], [93] RFA - Wehwalt
As related above, Mattisse has asserted, or insinuated, that there exist conspiracies/cabals/cliques which operate in various areas, apparently partly to thwart Mattisse, multiple times. For example, thses diffs relate to allegations about users at the Featured Article Candidates page.
/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates&diff=prev&oldid=251015112] [101] and [102]
"*Same thing. Samdy sets out how to vote, and the groupies comply.
Inappropriate edit summaries Mattisse often uses edit summaries (which remain in the article history even if the content of the edit is removed later) to disparage or attack other editors
Final comment Unless someone wants to ask me a question, I am not going to go through the rest of these petty complaints. Almost my every mistep here at Wikipedia has been identified and dredged up here. If you want to ask me about a specific instance, then please do so. I will look up diffs if necessary, if I can find them. But actually, I am tired of defending myself for all my mistakes, now recorded here in detail, in almost three years of work on Wikipedia in this RFC.
I am satisfied I was a major force in getting the Major depressive disorder to FAC. I believe the complaints are basically meant to harass me and drive me away from FAC and Wikipedia. I am perfectly willing to improve my behavior in ways that will be helpful to others, but not if I am constantly belittled by SandyGeorgia and my ever edit recorded in her little black book.
If other editors want to approach me and discuss my behavior, I am perfectly willing to do so. There are many FAC editors I have never had a problem with, in fact most. If people want to be reasonable with me, then I will with them. I am tired. I do not know what to say. If you want to ban me from Wikipedia I cannot stop you. The accusations are so twisted that I do not understand them and do not want to spend months going through them, which is what it would take.
Frankly, if I am so unwanted, then I don't want to remain here at Wikipedia. — Mattisse ( Talk) 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
---Response to Lars and secret discussions about me--- (copied from Lars talk page;
-- This is not good --
Mattisse... edits like this one just are not good. Not what we expect from seasoned contributors. Way too blatantly assuming bad faith and needling a fellow contributor. I've not followed your contributions closely but I'm not liking what I've seen... as I commented at Che, your approach may not be suitable. At all. I think you need to revisit it. ++ Lar: t/ c 03:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I did know that SandyGeorgia Opposed articles. All I said was "Sandy, you opposed it? That is good to know. Where did I get the idea you were neutral? Guess that was a wrong idea of mine." I was informed that she did so only in the past. Forgive me, but that was not clear to me from the context. To have Lars, someone I do not know, point out that a confusing comment was deeply disturbing to him made no sense to me. None. Nor did it make sense that he would post something like that on my talk page. He seemed to be assuming some level of bad faith on my part that I cannot even fathom.
Below I list all of your edits to the RFC before it went "live" and have responded to each one. I urge you to strike the ones that are false, misleading and do not assume good faith.
As for as the link you give to a comment of mine that you do not like this one, I do not understand your objection as above on this RFC there is a list of my typos and copy editing glitches, so what is wrong with me pointing them out? I don't get it. Are you saying that as you look around Wikipedia, this sort of petty behavior on my part is worthy of an RFC? ---Lars contributions to the compiling of the RFC--- Your contributions to the compiling of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3
:::::::::::Experienced editors? Have you ever gotten an article to a GA? Well we have, don't know about you. Right now i'm working on Santa Inoue's article, which i'm planning for to be at that rank. How many articles have you gotten to GA Sesshomaru? (not Sessh, by the way) – J U M P G U R U ■ ask㋐㋜㋗■ 00:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- A couple. Beelzebub (Sand Land) was my first (then it got redirected). I helped Himura Kenshin,
Sagara Sanosuke,and others meet that standard. Tried doing the same for Naruto Uzumaki and Pegasus Seiya up until recently, still gettin' there ;) Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 01:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
These are the accusations you contributed. At least two of them are false, or misleading. Are you willing to assume good faith and withdraw these accusation?
I sincerely hope you and others will assume good faith and strike out the false, misleading accusations above. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 20:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
A Barnstar for you
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
I BostonMA talk award you, Mattisse, this Barnstar on 18 October 2006 for your tireless efforts and great contributions to India related articles. Thank-you. |
For you! -- BostonMA talk 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Epic Barnstar | |
For a fantastic collaborative effort in Hoysala Empire I award you this epic barnstar BostonMA talk 14:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
--Your contributions--
Thank you for your intelligent copy edits on Hoysala Empire article and for the numerous pages you have worked on relating to Indian topics.
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For your tireless contributions to Hoysala Empire article and for your excellent contributions to many more topics on India. Dineshkannambadi 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
Thank you. Dineshkannambadi 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC) -- For your efforts --
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For your character and openmindedness. Dineshkannambadi 03:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you. Dineshkannambadi 03:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
--Barnstar--
I award
Mattisse barnstar in appreciation of contributions to article related to
India --
Pinecar 00:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-- A barnstar for you :) --
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
Great work on Dinesh's articles. You deserve this one. :) Sarvagnya 10:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
-- THANK YOU --
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Hello Mattisse, I am glad to award this to you for your excellent and tireless contributions on articles related to History of Karnataka and continued and tireless support to Dinesh in writing FA after FA. Thank you for your contributions and look forward many more from you. KNM Talk 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC) |
I earnestly urge
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) to please
assume good faith.
— Mattisse ( Talk) 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Final comment and ending
This has been a devastating experience, as I guess it was supposed to be. I am sorry I no longer have the heart or will to go through all the comments.
I am greatly thankful for all those contacted and others, who could have added to the score against me. It gives me great insight into those who do not carry a gunny sack on there back with all my failings. It was very unpleasant going through the diffs from 2006 when I was a newbie. I now realize that I do not understand Wikipedia at all and am not cut out for this kind of experience. Thank you to those of you who gave me so much pleasure. I will be around for a few more days to answer any questions. — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.
Q.
A.
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
I used to edit some articles with Mattisse several months ago and have followed what she's been up to. What I will say is that Mattisse has not been in half as much trouble in the last several months as she was previously. She used to have AN/I threads and stuff about her or involving her quite a lot, (not about the FAC process, about various other debacles) but hasn't (or at least none I've seen much, so not as many or as lengthy) for several months. Nor has she had many about the FAC issues. So her behaviour has improved somewhat. Everyone knows that the FAC process and commenting on the articles there is intimidating or frequently involves arguments, and editors such as Mattisse should not be discouraged from doing so. Otherwise it will end up being only a few editors commenting there, as she says, and articles they like getting through, rather than there being wider discussion which could lead to greater improvements to the articles, and a wider consensus. Sticky Parkin 23:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Cyborg Ninja interjected herself in the dispute with User:Blueboar over the Caison article, implying bad things about me. Since User:Blueboar regularly deletes his page I have not looked for his responses.
Cyborg Ninja posts on AN/I in defense of Blueboar
[161] and PalaceGuard thanks her for the "heads up". [162] — Mattisse ( Talk) 19:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I agree that she has contributed some good points to FAC, and ultimately, her review of sources for major depressive disorder was a very good thing, I just felt the weeks of extra vitriol were unnecessary, and this is November and early December we're talking about and it is only early January now. The other point to remember is that in general assumption of responsibility over one's own role in conflict (or lack thereof) is often a good pointer to the future. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you really think that Blueboar was right in allowing my article Zaojing to be copy/pasted into to Caisson (Asian architecture) without allowing for discussion first? Was he right in allowing my references to be copied inaccurately into Caisson (Asian architecture)? Was he right in trying to force me to rewrite Caisson (Asian architecture) while asking nothing from PalaceGuard? I saved my article and resurrected it under a new name many months later. I entered a REDIRECT. Neither Blueboar nor Palaceguard followed up on the Caisson (Asian architecture), whereas I recreated my article and renamed it: Ancient Chinese wooden architecture. You see Caisson (Asian architecture) as a better article than Ancient Chinese wooden architecture? Did that article deserve to be gutted without discussion into Caisson (Asian architecture)? Was Blueboar right in defending this action of PalaceGuards? You see this as a fair outcome? (You can read more, above, where I responded to this accusation, if you are interested. Blueboar's connect to User:Cyborg Ninja for example who was subsequently blocked.)
?— Mattisse ( Talk) 01:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
I don't know if I have the right to call this an "Outside" view because I am listed in the evidence. Please correct me if that is the case. I will reinforce again that I have respect for those who have initiated the RfC and that I do not wish for my comments to be see as disparaging them. Also, I am glad that Casliber responded to my question above; it helped me think of what to say here. I apologize if this falls under "too long, didn't read". Finally, I really don't want to be offensive, and I want to try and seek some kind of neutrality (at least, for a few people to try and be).
My view: the problems with human nature is that humans tend to group together for mutual defense and that emotions are prone to running wild. Every day on Wikipedia, I am afraid of such a thing happening. Lets go back to my own story for an example. My past is scattered, but to be more limiting: my first experience with User:Geogre did not go well. It was during a FAC; he was very straight forward and came off rough. I took offense, my emotions took over, and we got into many fights over a few months. I realized that it happened because my emotions dominated, I took more offense then I should have, and I ended up not respecting him. I have come to appreciate the work he has done around here, and I realized that my petty feelings should not stand in the way of an encyclopedia. What does all of this mean? Well, we are all human. We all have emotional outbursts, and we all see each other in bad lights. We have Assume Good Faith as one of our core ideas in order to try and draw us back to what is best for the encyclopedia. It is really hard to do. I have a lot of problems with it. I've struggled with it my whole time here, and still do. However, that is part of human nature.
As I stated before, I am not Mattisse's friend, nor do I ever work with her. The only times we've run into each other was either at a neutral moment or on two opposite sides of a discussion. However, I realized that I was able to overcome my inability to assume good faith by making close connections with reasonable people, to run things by them first, and to vent offline and try and drop it after I purge my emotions over a situation. I was able to make a lot of progress because people were willing to help me. They were willing to look behind behavioral problems. They were willing to try and keep me occupied on various projects. They were willing to come to my defense, but not to spoil me or bail me out without me learning from my mistakes. The important thing to do is to have someone know why they are criticized, why they are blocked, why they are removed from an area (etc), but to then say that they can still contribute, to encourage them towards the future, and to show that it is not down because someone hates them. Sure, sometimes blocks are punitive, sometimes people are malicious, and sometimes problems occur. However, the human mind wants to see it far more frequently, and sometimes even malicious occurrences should be ignored for the greater good.
We are all human here. We all have the same problems. Some are able to deal with them easier than others. However, we should recognize these flaws. We should try to help each other overcome them. We should be inclusive, welcoming, and caring. Yes, people will say mean things to you over time, but most of the time those mean comments are the result of intense emotions that just spill out and are meaningless. I am not saying that this user should or should not be blocked. I am not saying that she is right or wrong. I do not want to pass judgment upon her. However, I want to make sure that we recognize that this user has devoted a lot of her time to this encyclopedia; she is intrinsically connected to it. Any results or outcomes from this will have a powerful influence over her, and will say a great deal about us as people. So lets recognize that when we are dealing with people over civility issues that we probably have problems that we should also deal with. Once we do that, maybe we can have a little more compassion, a little more understanding, and possibly, just possibly, we can overcome our differences and try to work with each other. Regardless of the results, everyone participating here should try to be a little more welcoming to each other. We should try to prevent problems that are the result of a slow build up over time. After all, it is better to gain an ally than it is to defeat an enemy. Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
I'm lucky: my dealings with Mattisse have been on a very friendly basis, and from my narrow experience, she's likeable, intelligent and lucid. But heck, Mattisse, you're upsetting a lot of good people; something must be wrong in part of the way you're approaching the interpersonal on WP. Indulge me for a moment while I talk psychology: it appears to me that you're allowing your red-hot buttons to be pushed by other users in ways they're not aware of. Some of these buttons interface with your passion for and knowledge of certain topics; others may be grounded in previous unsatisfactory experiences that you don't want to revisit in a current situation. The result is a spiralling of negative emotion in you, reinforced by other users' negative comments in a kind of feedback mechanism. Perhaps this explains how you can do such good work, then compromise it by negative, over-the-top comments towards others? The sum of it is destructive.
Now I have a vision of a Mattisse who has excised this vulnerability to her interpersonal trigger-points, and uses her strength to create positive collaborations from her passion and knowledge. How to stop the negative? It's not easy, but this might help: (1) learning to recognise where it's building to flash-point, (2) withdrawing for 12 or 24 hours and returning with a little distance from a situation, and (3) editing your more personal entries before hitting the "save" button, so that they appear too soft (they won't be for the recipients, and will have greater effect, ironically).
I think you might enjoy your interactions on WP more after a while. Tony (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
I participated in the FAC on MDD and my comments refer entirely to work there. I thought that when we had finished on the FAC were all on friendly terms, and we had all helped each other in different arenas with our styles, and we had all learnt something. At a late stage in the FAC discussion, Mattisse was the fourth highest contributor in terms of edit counts to the page, and I was the fifth highest contributor. I found that Matisse to be an very knowledgeable wikipedian, and always polite and courteous to me. I think that she made good suggestions that sometimes may not have been immediately apparent to non-experts in the areas of the page that she was interested in. It is my impression that at the start of the FAC the article had not been copy edited by several experts in the various fields relevant to the article, because it was ridden throughout by unclear text, in my opinion. The article covered a lot of ground and perhaps more than one expert was needed to cover the various topics in the article. It seems to me that Matisse and myself are knowledgeable in different disciplines relevant to the article, and, may I say that I think we worked together effectively. I think that the article is as good as it is today, partly because of Mattisse's giant contribution to the article. I can understand why the team that proposed the FAC were keen to get the article through the to FA, but I can equally understand conscientious editors wanting to get the article clear of ambiguities and misunderstandings before it got to FA. During discussion in the FAC, Mattisse sometimes came to help me and, from my point of view, protected me and made editing on the MDD FAC a friendlier place. Snowman ( talk) 01:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The circumstances of the discussions on the MDD FAC would need to be fully considered, rather than providing a series of quotes as above, because I think the energies of the several editors involved combined in a complicated way. I would have thought that most aspects of the FAR have been discussed elsewhere, and that there was no need to discuss the MDD FAC any more. I did not collaboratate in any of the other incidents listed above outside of the MDD FAC, but I hope that people will be able to come to an amicable understanding. Snowman ( talk) 01:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
One of the surest ways to get support at conduct RFC is to declare that it's unlikely to solve anything and ask people to get back to writing articles. The people who post that rarely give specifics, though. I'll try filling that gap.
Obviously there is a conduct problem here and I hope Mattisse takes steps to correct it. Having interacted with plenty of editors who were on the short end of dispute resolution (and occasionally been there myself), the best chances for real resolution occur when the concerns raised are couched in moderate language, well substantiated, and internally consistent. It is important that these standards be maintained throughout, because overreaching any part of the presentation tends to distract: the editor on the hot seat usually focuses on the overreaches and is mightily tempted to disregard the rest. Sometimes the perception (or even the reality) is that mud is getting slung. So unless particular care is taken when drafting an RFC, the undertaking becomes self-defeating.
With respect toward the majority of Casliber's presentation, particular elements stand out. If Mattisse's faults are a failure to assume sufficient good faith and failure to adequately substantiate concerns, then one would hope that the initiator of this RFC would assume good faith of him whenever possible and substantiate all concerns about Mattisse's conduct. And yet the complaint accuses Mattisse of disrupting the featured article review process in violation of the WP:POINT policy. One of the examples asserted is the FAR of Augustan literature, although the description fails to mention that it actually resulted in delisting per Mattisse's nomination. The purported dispute at the article talk page was ordinary civil discussion about the article's lack of inline citations. Older featured articles that lack any inline citations have been getting reviewed and delisted for a while, and this one had been tagged with a request for citations several months earlier (which one of the principal contributors had removed with a declaration that he refused to provide them). In good faith, it looks entirely plausible that Mattisse decided this article was less compliant with FA standards than the other one he had already nominated for review, and withdrew the previous nomination in order to prioritize appropriately.
Now I've scarcely interacted with Mattisse firsthand at all, and I have very high opinions of the people who initiated this RFC and certified it, and some of Mattisse's statements certainly exceed the standard bounds of good faith and civility. Yet it doesn't rest easily to see a request for comment that attempts to paint a proper FAR as disruption, or that characterizes the editor under scrutiny in the language of psychology (as in Attempts to engage often lead to responses which could be seen as paranoid or manipulative). If they could be seen that way but the context affords doubt, then please select one's terms with better discretion when calling out a fellow editor before his peers. Including the best interpretations along with one's concerns is what we call good faith. If we want him to improve at it then it is imperative that we demonstrate good faith.
Due to these concerns I am unable to endorse this request for comment, which is a sad thing because a request for comment is probably necessary. I leave Mattisse to sort out the comments here (or initiate contact with me if he wishes) and now I'll return to editing. You won't see much else on my edit history tonight because I'll be in another program restoring a historic photograph of construction at Mount Rushmore. Fellow editors, if you agree with this statement please join me in specifying what encyclopedia content you'll be contributing. Best wishes all. Durova Charge! 07:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
After reading Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder/restart, used as a "Detailed analysis of a FAC candidacy" above, I can see there are two ways of viewing what happened:
It is likely that both views are accurate.
However, even without assuming good faith by Mattisse, and given that b) is the most accurate view, how much disruption and damage has Mattissee done in that review, compared to the good she has done?
And when good faith by Mattisse is assumed (which isn't difficult given the amount of time and effort she spent improving the article, and that more than one other participant agreed with her assessments), is her behaviour in that FAC really deserving of a RFC? I have known some users get a BarnStar for such dedication to an article and to the project as a whole.
My feeling is that it is view a) which is the most accurate, and credit should be given to Mattisse for the work she did during that process. And more than that - some recognition should be given for the frustration she must have felt at what happened, and that this RFC is hardly likely to make her feel any the less frustrated.
Users who endorse this summary:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
I've observed Mattisse on a few FAC's, and I really didn't form an opinion one way or another. Usually, long-winded editors bore the crap out of me, so, I rarely read what they say. I'm not a big fan of RFC's, since they're just a giant bitch session, but Casliber has made some strong points. And I trust Cas. But all of that's irrelevant. This morning, Mattisse did this to an innocent conversation about an ongoing FAC on my user talk. Those of you who know me understand that I don't take kindly to this, and probably would have termed it "vandalism" in a stern warning to her page. But then I realized that this one edit on my user talk was really kind of mean. Deleting my, wholly irrelevant and silly, comment to User:SandyGeorgia, while adding in a wholly irrelevant but pointed comment. My only interaction with Mattisse was here where she was in an edit conflict with me while I tried to clean up citations for an FAC. Her response was on my talk page was rather odd and almost passive aggressive. So my view of this situation is that Mattisse has to get over her obsession with SG, quit playing martyrs, and maybe be topic blocked (or is it banned) from FAC's, since they cause her so much grief. And she really ought to retract her latest edit to my page (although I've done it already). Otherwise, there's really not much to see here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 10:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
The mention of Che Guevara being defeatured in the Statement of Dispute could be interpreted as blaming Mattisse. I had been editing the Che Guevara article for a few weeks when it was defeatured. I didn't get the impression that Mattisse caused it to be defeatured or (as far as I remember) disrupted the process. It was my impression that the defeaturing was based on detailed lists of concerns by some other editors acting as FA reviewers, concerned mainly with NPOV and formatting. Although we did a lot of work, not all the problems listed were fixed.
The Statement of Dispute says "Mattisse had a lengthy dispute with Coppertwig over Che Guevara". As far as I remember and as far as I'm aware, there have not been any content disputes between Mattisse and myself at the Che Guevara article.
Users who endorse this summary:
This RfC contains many old diffs, and is not formatted in such a way as to make it easy to find any more recent diffs that may be present. For this and other reasons I'm not commenting on most of the issues raised here. I'm just clarifying a few specific points.
I hate to add to the burden, Mattisse, of all the things in this RfC which taken together may be rather overwhelming for you. But, I feel a need to clear up a couple of things.
You said in "Reply to Sticky Parkin" in the Response section of this RfC, "User:Coppertwig has denied any notable problems with me or my behavior in his outside view posted in this RFC." Actually, that's not what I meant. When I said "content disputes", I was only referring to disputes about article content.
You also said in the Response section of this RfC, re Che Guevara, "I would remind you that User:Coppertwig and User:Redthoreau controlled the content of that article for quite a while." I disagree, and with or without the proposed remedy "Stop unsupported allegations", I would appreciate it if you would either strike out that statement, or substantiate it.
I really appreciate the positive energy I've seen in your comments of the past few days, and I hope things go well for you.
Users who endorse this summary:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Noting for the record that Mattisse has continued to fail to assume good faith and to make unsupported and inaccurate statements, here and elsewhere, since this RFC started. Some examples (not an exhaustive list) are:
I hope these sorts of insinuations, unsupported accusations and failure to AGF (detrimental to a collegial editing environment) will cease once this RFC closes. There has been no call for Mattisse to be banned or sanctioned: only for a change in these behaviors. [178]
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
My dealings with Matisse have been uniformly pleasant. I can't speak to all the issues mentioned above, but I can say something about her dealings with user:Dineshkannambadi. First, let me say unequivocally, to whosoever wrote the statement above, that what is given as an example of user:Mattisse's racist comment is not even remotely racist. There is no "racial" (whatever that means) difference between residents of southern India who speak Tamil and those who speak Kannada; the differences are ethnic, as indeed there are among Kannada speakers themselves. All Mattise is doing there is pointing to a long simmering dispute on Wikipdia that, in my limited observation, is mostly the creation of the latter group. It is like a chihuahua (Kannada speakers) nipping at the heels of an elephant (Tamil speakers), a "dispute" that looms large only in one pair of eyes. I've seen evidence of this cultural inferiority-complex on other Wikipedia pages, such as India, where Kannada-speaking editors have relentlessly nickel-and-dimed issues of no consequence all because it makes their region (long-neglected and diminished in their view) come out looking a little better. In addition, I have found this "Kannada nationalism" on Wikipedia to be infused with Hindu nationalism, as is evidenced, for example, in this post by user:Dineshkannambadi on the Talk:India page:
"I dont Phoo ( sic) Phoo ( sic) your clever 'number of hits on google' arguement ( sic). I am just amused, seeing a clear religious inclination emerging in your debates, of which I advice ( sic) you against. The languages these writers, Iqbal and Galib ( sic) wrote in is ( sic) hardly considered native to Indian soil, though I am sure their writings are highly cherished. The influence of Urdu/Persian on Indian history is at best minimal to Indian culture (16 ( sic) century onwards) and this does not compare competitivly ( sic) to a great language like Kannada language which is not only native to India, but has evolved on Indian soil for over 2000 years, has influenced Tamil, a classical language of India, has been an administrative language for almost 1600 years and has a proven "extant" literature from the 9th century, with numerous references to Kannada writers from as early as 5th-6th century. Why should Galib ( sic) and Iqbal get the same stage as the seven gems of modern Kannada." (Italics and "sic"s mine.)
To which I replied:
"What soil is Urdu native to? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iran? Arabia? It was created smack in the middle of India, in an around Delhi and UP. Muslims (according to 2001 Census of India) comprise 13.4% of India's population and a large majority are speakers of Urdu. Many more than there are Kannada speakers."
As for user:Dineshkannambadi's Wikipedia articles, the limited evidence that I have examined in three— Kingdom of Mysore (currently in FAR), Kannada literature and Western Chalukya architecture—is one of an editor with poor writing skills. My impression is that in the past, user:Dineshkannambadi has leaned on user:Mattisse in order to turn his (Wikipedia) sow's ears into silk purses, but has given her little credit for her extensive work that, in most cases, has gone far beyond routine copy editing. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This is one of the very rare occasions that I am commenting at an RFC. I generally avoid them like the plague. I am a huge believer in leaving those writing the project alone to do so,and ignoring their odd peculiarities. However, as Mattisse does not fall into that category, I am, after much goading from Mattisse finally here. I shall not comment on the grossly unfair attack on user:Dineshkannambadi immediatly above, one of Wikipedia's most entheusiastic editors in the architectural field, lttle known to those ouside it - that can come later. I want to concentrate on Mattisse; she damges main-space pages so I will remain silent about her, no longer. Where possible I avoid her, occasionally she makes this impossible, even to the extent of removing facts from featured articles or nominating them for FARC just to gain a re-action. My observations of her are that she fixes an editor or page in her sights and then refuses to be detracted. She will attack their work and them personally. She does not just bait people, or argue - she makes their wiki-life intolerable. One of her strategies is to turn up at a high profile page, cut across those who have written it and monitor it and insist on her views being inserted, if there is any hesitation by those monitoring the page, then she attacks them in any way possible - without justification. Basically, Mattisse's arrival on a main-space page is trouble - the temptation for a timid editor to just back off must be enormous, and probably wise. Mattisse is one of the very few editors I have come across here, who really does hamper building the encyclopedia, this is not Wiki-politics - this is damage to mainspace and those creating and promoting it. I have no doubt as a consequence of me saying this, she will stalk my edits and pages I monitor even further, but it has to be said: the project would be better off without her. Mattisse needs to go to arbitration, I have never brought an Arbcase, and have no intention of doing so now - but this is surely where Mattisse needs to be. Giano ( talk) 09:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.
1) Mattisse to refrain from allegations of others' conduct without supplying evidence of same. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
2) Ban Mattisse indefinitely
3) Given how this is unfolding, is it worth considering mentorship of some form? Someone (hopefully) who can be on Mattisse's 'side' as it were, in the future and help with analysis and reflection? OK, this is a highly stressful situation, but (often) so can be FAC and GAN (where other blow-ups have occurred), hence maybe a mentor will help smoothe some of these situations in future. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Blueboar I have explained twice above, and I still believe he was wrong in not following policy by allowing my article to be copy/pasted into another, then defending the other editor at my expense. I regret the incident and will never enter Mediation again so that I will not be put in that position. User:LessHeard vanU and I are on good terms as we mutually decided to drop the issue. (And he was reprimanded in ArbCom for his role in taking User:Zeraeph's side in the dispute and in unblocking User:Zeraeph. He has admitted his error and User:Zeraeph is now banned for a year. User:Coppertwig has denied any notable problems with me or my behavior in his outside view posted in this RFC. As to the main problem that I gather from the diffs presented in the RFC, that I offended SandyGeorgia, I admit to this and I am sorry for doing this. I admit that I made frivolous, unkind remarks and that I continued to make them, even after I knew they were upsetting her. I will take great care to no longer do that. I apologize to SandyGeorgia.
I have been gratified by the wonderful support I have received in this RFC and am truly grateful to all those that chose to go out of their way and be helpful and kind to me. I have learned much from them and am very touched that so many chose to see my mistakes as mistakes. I have received two barnstars because of the RFC. — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
Awarded for championing the ideals of encyclopedic writing and bringing about countless article improvements as part of her GA review work. Jayen 466 15:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC) |
--- Major depressive disorder---
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
A barnstar for Mattisse in recognition of her work in helping bring ' Major depressive disorder to FA status. SilkTork * YES! 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
I feel the warmth from the community which I have never felt before. So I thank everyone who participated in this RFC. Overall, this was a good experience from which I have hopefully permanently benefited and my behavior in the future will show this. This is the first time I have felt part of the Wiki community in the almost three years I have been here. I cannot express my gratitude enough. — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
4) Given the accusations by Casliber and SandyGeorgia listed against me appear largely unsupported by others editors, and pertain to a tiny percentage of my overall participation on Wikipedia, I think this whole RFC can be seen as an over reaction by Calisber and SandyGeorgia to the enormous stress created by FAC. I urge them to desist in their accusations as not productive and to assume good faith.
Casliber 's allegations are mostly over one FAC article Major depressive disorder, which he appears to consider his, and which I am the second highest contributor, all of my contributions being during the FAC and therefore putting me in the position of largely being responsible for upgrading the article to FAC status. He might have been stressed also over his ArbCom election. I asked him an election question whether "Cheers" was an appropriate signature as an Arbitrator, as he lists this question in his allegations against me. He made a joke of my question at the time. However, he has now dropped the "Cheers" when he signs ArbCom statements. Likewise, SandyGeorgia's accusations revolve mostly around FAC and include a very small sample of my total participate there, largely complaints over my attempts to upgrade the Major depressive disorder article, from which she may have experienced much stress. FAC is stressful for anyone who tries to participate there. I suggest both Casliber and SandyGeorgia assume good faith and let me continue to contribute to Wikipedia without further harassment from either of them. I suggest that all of us, including Casliber and SandyGeorgia try not to let the stressful atmosphere of FAC (and suggestion or complaints made about FAC) get to us. — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
(subsequent material moved to talk page here)
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
(For reference: Mattisse ( talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email))
Mattisse is a prolific editor at Wikipedia with over 55,000 edits. However Mattisse also has a history of difficulties in collaborative editing. This history goes back quite some time and manifests itself in many ways, making it difficult to exhaustively list all the incidents. There have been repeated issues at WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAN, WP:GAR, WP:DYK, WP:RFA and Editor review, among other places.
Mattisse continues to make frequent comments insinuating that there is a 'clique' of users around FAC and WP:FAR or a clique of administrators, etc... whose conduct is somehow questionable (Mattisse does not provide evidence of this when asked), and has misrepresented User:Casliber's behaviour as 'bullying' while refusing to engage in discussion on it. Attempts to engage often lead to responses which could be seen as paranoid or manipulative.
This behaviour is highly unpleasant and is not conductive to collegial editing. It is widespread enough that it is not hyperbole to say that it is corroding the morale of several contributors to the English Wikipedia.
Since her earliest days on Wiki, and continuing to the present, there has been evidence of difficulties with collaboration (as an example, note these frustrated comments from FayssalF), understanding Wiki policies and assuming good faith, with repeated charges by her of an "in group" or "gangs of administrators" out to get her, and threats to leave when this is pointed out (a few examples: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]) and a pattern of not taking responsibility for changing her behavior. When apparent sockpuppets were discovered (see Sockpuppets of Mattisse) Mattisse disclaimed the sockpuppet charges, but several were checkuser verified and several (such as ABSmyth ( talk · contribs), Dattat ( talk · contribs), NothingMuch ( talk · contribs), Flinders ( talk · contribs) and GBYork ( talk · contribs)) are consistent with her editing and do not appear likely to have been from her grandchildren (the explanation offered at the time).
Mattisse also has a history of falling out with editors who befriend her: for example, Malleus Fatuorum ( talk · contribs) here, Dineshkannambadi ( talk · contribs) (see this racist personal attack) and SandyGeorgia ( talk · contribs). [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
An example of her difficulties with other editors, extending over an entire archive at User talk:Coppertwig during the Che Guevara FAR, starts here.
What follows are some additional samplings.
Reference: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1
There was consensus to begin restoring Che Guevara to featured status, work proceeding mutually with no issues, the article appeared to be on track to be restored, when Mattisse suddenly took offense but never explained why; [15] [16] the article was defeatured.
Claims that "only a few, select FAC editors are allowed to engage" at WP:FAR
Also, Bad faith assumptions on users Coppertwig and Redthoreau at Che Guevara.
Mattisse submitted Robert A. Heinlein to FAR on November 11. [17] [18] Less than 24 hours later, after a disagreement at Augustan literature (and because the FAR instructions permit only one nomination at a time), she withdrew and deleted the Heinlein FAR to submit Wikipedia:Featured article review/Augustan literature/archive1 instead. ( background from talk page.)
After User:SandyGeorgia apparently happened across an article under GA review when correcting an articlehistory error and provided information about citations in the lead while there, Mattisse referred to the primary editor of the article as obsessed, and erroneously stated several times that the article "got passed because its editor was encouraged during the GA review by an FAC intruder (who jumped into the GA review process, just before the decision was made to pass) and declared the article close to FAC" and made personal attacks, also stating that "SandyGeorgia and company will probably interfere again", even after the editor passing the GA clarified that the pass had nothing to do with the mild comment about citations in the lead. [19] Mattisse has a history of persisting with notions even after she has been told they are not correct.
Repeated bad faith assumptions at Jbmurray ( talk · contribs) who started the GAR:
Edit warring and disruption at Coppertwig's RFA (Mattisse had a lengthy dispute with Coppertwig over Che Guevara): [20]
Unfounded and unstruck oppose at Epbr123's RFA, even after her errors were pointed out by several editors: [21] [22] Mattisse rarely strikes incorrect information, retracts, or apologizes even after her info has been shown incorrect.
Wikipedia:Editor review/Cosmic Latte provides a survey of some particularly nasty behavior from Mattisse. Samples:
To which Cosmic Latte, doing his best to remain civil, replied in part
and MastCell observed to Mattisse:
Featured Article Candidacy for Reactive attachment disorder
Similar to what occurred at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder (as shall be detailed in more depth in a subsequenct section, as a detailed examination is instructive)... and which had to be restarted after Mattisse created at least a dozen sections), Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reactive attachment disorder had to be restarted because of Mattisse's disruption. She frequently went off-topic, discussing other articles, including long lists of tangential items and off-topic commentary, and appeared to misunderstand the difference between the full-text of a journal article and a Pubmed abstract.
Constant disparagement of FAC process, derailing discussions at WT:FAC, leading other editors to suggest an archiving of the entire page: [23], [24]
Mattisse takes issue with the FAC process:
Mattisse disparages other editors as groupies:
Mattisse claims there is a cabal:
Mattisse is then challenged to substantiate the claims:
... but nothing comes of it except for astonishingly bad faith statements.
Later, an editor commments "Mattisse's comments are part of the reason why I don't want to participate at FAC. Instead of focusing on the criteria, its just an excuse to trash others." and finally the entire page is archived.
Mattisse copyedits articles at FAC, but often introduces typographical and grammatical errors (that remain uncorrected until others fix them), some samples:
In a discussion at WP:MEDRS, another example of Mattisse frequently taking offense over misunderstandings and threatening to leave:
Mattisse often uses edit summaries (which remain in the article history even if the content of the edit is removed later) to disparage or attack other editors
While possibly milder than some comments elsewhere, the general negative tone is ongoing, with broad negative aspersions cast after some initial measured comments.
The following is a detailed analysis of a candidacy referred to above, as accounted by Casliber:
My first in-depth interaction with Mattisse came about while nominating major depressive disorder (MDD) at FAC, which was subsequently restarted. I admit that I did goof badly in the sourcing; alot of keen editors had been very helpful along the way and I had visions of a great group effort, but I was sloppy and didn't check the sources as closely as I should. Mattisse was instrumental in the proper sourcing of the article, but I really could have done without the gratuitous remarks along the way - the tone did deteriorate and I did lose my temper (see chronology below), however Mattisse repeated that I harassed and made personal attacks on her. [30] [31] [32] [33] and being 'driven off' [34] I found this hard to take as my impression was that she started the confrontational tone and yet accused me of the same.
A sequence of interactions from the beginning of the FAC until the time of Eusebeus' support as follows:
The next few diffs we talk about rating scales, and Mattisse says this which is odd as the extra ref Casliber got Mattise later removed and Casliber replaced (???)
In the middle, PMID crashed
here Mattisse raises some good points, which had been very tricky to thresh out with good secondary sources, and Casliber did concede we did not get on the religion issue sooner, but it is frustrating to see it frequently talked about yet insanely hard to cite, until Casliber (finally) found one on google after juggling a bit
In between, Garrondo notes the 'non-asked for little speech'
Casliber tried to raise this with Mattisse on her talk page (easier to read from there with Casliber's comments beginning in the middle.
As related above, Mattisse has asserted, or insinuated, that there exist conspiracies/cabals/cliques which operate in various areas, apparently partly to thwart Mattisse, multiple times. For example, thses diffs relate to allegations about users at the Featured Article Candidates page.
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.
This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.
Mattisse needs to assume good faith. Always. She needs to work collegially with other editors. Always. Some example improvements, not intended to be exhaustive...
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.
Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.
Q. I do not intend this question to be pointy. I do not intend it to be an attack. I am not saying that there is a lack of good faith. This does not call into question any of the certifiers of this, especially since I respect those involved. However: Are we able to be neutral here? Is it possible that neutrality is possible when most of the originating complaints are over personal attacks that have an emotional impact upon the psyche, whether conscious or not? I know from my experience that I wished great harm or restraints to be brought upon people who have insulted me. However, I also recognize that such a thing is an emotional response, and neutrality would force me (and everyone else based on universal human qualities) to remove the emotional reactions and try to see what the problem is. Is this just because people are angry at another user, or is this because there is an actual problem? Is this user a net benefit and possibly just someone who steps on a lot of toes in the process? I'm not Mattisse's friend. My only interaction with her has been in conflict. However, I would not want this to turn into a sort of trial because the above user has said many, many things that have upset many people. We have temporary blocks to deal with that kind of thing, and we have abilities to avoid others. Is it possible that this could possibly lead to a lack of neutrality, result in a public shaming, and only cause greater harm in the long run? If so, who is next? When will my turn to be dragged through the mud come about? Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
A. Good question. I created this RfC as I was frustrated with Mattisse's response to suggestions by others to change her ways. Of course I am not neutral, nor are others who have been on the receiving end of her invective, but the idea is that uninvolved people also look at the debate and decide whether or not I am being thin-skined or whether she has a case to answer and what to do about it. The other issue is that many comments taken in isolation are in a grey area with respect to a disruptive or civility threshold, but it is the ongoing stream which is so damaging to morale.
This is like a community forum. Ottava, I get on well with you and can see your point of view often, but I see you have had issues with others. My best suggestion is to look forward and try to make up with people and find some common ground. Maybe we should take this elsewhere. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
(additional answer from Lar) - Ottava, I share your concern. But what is desired here is not a lynching, it is a change in behaviour. Take a look at the desired outcome, above. The things being asked for are things that, really, we expect of every editor... not to disrupt processes, not to disparage processes and people, not to make meanspirited and spiteful edit summaries, and so forth... in short, to be a collegial editor. We are all big boys and girls here, we can take a bit of imperfect conversation, we're not lilies to be protected. But this is not something about someone making one short tempered remark, this is about a pattern of behaviour that has to change. It's long term, it's corrosive, and it's impacting significant swathes of the project. I hope Mattisse heeds this wakeup call and thinks seriously about this. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(comment from SilkTork): I also recognise the concern. I had an encounter with Mattisse when I was her AMA advocate back in January 2007, and the encounter ended up being very distressing. The sores from that are such that I would question my ability to be fair. I would like to think I would be fair, as that is the nature of what most of us do here on Wikipedia - we put our personal feelings aside and look impartially at what is best for the community. We deal with angry people, and respond calmly. We pride ourselves on our ability to not rise to baiting. However, Mattisse is a special case. She has a knack for annoying a wide range of people - she has a way of getting under the skin, winning trust, and then betraying that trust in the most breath-taking manner. This RfC may end up being divided into supportive comments from those who have not experienced the bad side of Mattisse, and less than supportive comments from those who have been hurt. I hope not. But this relevant and important question should keep us alert to that probability. Thanks for asking it. SilkTork * YES! 10:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Q. How did User:Lar get involved in this? I have never had any previous contact with him, never been involved in an article with him, so why would he contact me over SandyGeorgia out of the blue? So many really awful things are happening on Wikipedia, and I am that awful that this important person (I now know from his user page) plunks himself, with no explanation, into my life? It makes no sense. — Mattisse ( Talk) 06:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
A.This question, or a very close variant of it, was asked on my talk page, and answered there at some length. Here's a permalink to the conversation as it exists now: [54]... A recap, though, is that a lot of people talk to me about a lot of things, and I observe a lot of things as well. I've been aware of Mattisse for some time, but a growing number of concerns (some with requests for anonymity) were brought to me recently. My first direct recent interaction was on Mattisse's talk page. I've given that diff, above, characterising it as unsatisfactory. That only increased my concern (the way that particular discussion went, with Mattisse casting aspersions on all sorts of folk, was really a red flag for me) and so I continued to investigate further. And now, here we are. I'll reiterate what everyone else is saying... Mattisse, you need to focus on you, and your behaviour, and where it can be strengthened, instead of on everyone else. This RfC is about your conduct. You are a terrifically valuable, dedicated, bright, energetic contributor with much to offer this project (and much good work to be proud of already). But you have to find a way to be more mellow. That's really all that is being asked of you. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Q. I am willing to release numerous letter both from SandyGeorgia and from Dinesh to prove my points. Is that allowed? SandyGeorgia is far more candid and explicit in letters and I would like to be able to quote from them. Dinesh's letter will also explain how angry and vindictive he was in letters, once he knew I would never copy edit for him again. I am sorry he has esculated his position by commenting here, as many times I have considered contacting him with a conciliatory message. His comments here make that impossible now forever. This RFC is poisonous and will poison Wikipedia in the future. I can never continue here after this. However, I would like all to be revealed before I leave. — Mattisse ( Talk) 07:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
A. It is polite to seek the agreement of the other party to an email before releasing it. And even with their agreement you probably should edit it to remove personally identifying information such as email addresses, real names, addressses and the like before revealing it. Hope that advice is helpful. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}
I am not sure how to respond to the above indictment. Since it begins with my behavior 2 1/2 years ago, I guess I will start there.
Cause One - "Since her earliest days on Wiki, and continuing to the present, there has been evidence of difficulties with collaboration (as an example, note frustrated comments of User:FayssalF"
-- Barnstars --
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar
Awarded to Mattisse for her tireless work on cleaning up countless of articles on small and often overlooked places around the world by Netsnipe (Talk) on 03:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC) |
![]() |
Resilient Barnstar
Awarded to Mattisse for becoming a better editor, even thought the advice was offered in the midst of a dispute. Maury 12:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC) |
Not responsible for Che Guevara
The ALL CAPs issue is a false one. [77] It pertained to inline notes in the article, which one person objected to but others, including Calisber, said he preferred them because they were easier to find. (You are crawling through my archives for this kind of stuff?)
Copyedits - "Mattisse copyedits articles at FAC, but often introduces typographical and grammatical errors (that remain uncorrected until others fix them), some samples."
Responses to more accusatory links
[91], [92], [93] RFA - Wehwalt
As related above, Mattisse has asserted, or insinuated, that there exist conspiracies/cabals/cliques which operate in various areas, apparently partly to thwart Mattisse, multiple times. For example, thses diffs relate to allegations about users at the Featured Article Candidates page.
/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates&diff=prev&oldid=251015112] [101] and [102]
"*Same thing. Samdy sets out how to vote, and the groupies comply.
Inappropriate edit summaries Mattisse often uses edit summaries (which remain in the article history even if the content of the edit is removed later) to disparage or attack other editors
Final comment Unless someone wants to ask me a question, I am not going to go through the rest of these petty complaints. Almost my every mistep here at Wikipedia has been identified and dredged up here. If you want to ask me about a specific instance, then please do so. I will look up diffs if necessary, if I can find them. But actually, I am tired of defending myself for all my mistakes, now recorded here in detail, in almost three years of work on Wikipedia in this RFC.
I am satisfied I was a major force in getting the Major depressive disorder to FAC. I believe the complaints are basically meant to harass me and drive me away from FAC and Wikipedia. I am perfectly willing to improve my behavior in ways that will be helpful to others, but not if I am constantly belittled by SandyGeorgia and my ever edit recorded in her little black book.
If other editors want to approach me and discuss my behavior, I am perfectly willing to do so. There are many FAC editors I have never had a problem with, in fact most. If people want to be reasonable with me, then I will with them. I am tired. I do not know what to say. If you want to ban me from Wikipedia I cannot stop you. The accusations are so twisted that I do not understand them and do not want to spend months going through them, which is what it would take.
Frankly, if I am so unwanted, then I don't want to remain here at Wikipedia. — Mattisse ( Talk) 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
---Response to Lars and secret discussions about me--- (copied from Lars talk page;
-- This is not good --
Mattisse... edits like this one just are not good. Not what we expect from seasoned contributors. Way too blatantly assuming bad faith and needling a fellow contributor. I've not followed your contributions closely but I'm not liking what I've seen... as I commented at Che, your approach may not be suitable. At all. I think you need to revisit it. ++ Lar: t/ c 03:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I did know that SandyGeorgia Opposed articles. All I said was "Sandy, you opposed it? That is good to know. Where did I get the idea you were neutral? Guess that was a wrong idea of mine." I was informed that she did so only in the past. Forgive me, but that was not clear to me from the context. To have Lars, someone I do not know, point out that a confusing comment was deeply disturbing to him made no sense to me. None. Nor did it make sense that he would post something like that on my talk page. He seemed to be assuming some level of bad faith on my part that I cannot even fathom.
Below I list all of your edits to the RFC before it went "live" and have responded to each one. I urge you to strike the ones that are false, misleading and do not assume good faith.
As for as the link you give to a comment of mine that you do not like this one, I do not understand your objection as above on this RFC there is a list of my typos and copy editing glitches, so what is wrong with me pointing them out? I don't get it. Are you saying that as you look around Wikipedia, this sort of petty behavior on my part is worthy of an RFC? ---Lars contributions to the compiling of the RFC--- Your contributions to the compiling of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3
:::::::::::Experienced editors? Have you ever gotten an article to a GA? Well we have, don't know about you. Right now i'm working on Santa Inoue's article, which i'm planning for to be at that rank. How many articles have you gotten to GA Sesshomaru? (not Sessh, by the way) – J U M P G U R U ■ ask㋐㋜㋗■ 00:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- A couple. Beelzebub (Sand Land) was my first (then it got redirected). I helped Himura Kenshin,
Sagara Sanosuke,and others meet that standard. Tried doing the same for Naruto Uzumaki and Pegasus Seiya up until recently, still gettin' there ;) Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 01:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
These are the accusations you contributed. At least two of them are false, or misleading. Are you willing to assume good faith and withdraw these accusation?
I sincerely hope you and others will assume good faith and strike out the false, misleading accusations above. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 20:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
A Barnstar for you
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
I BostonMA talk award you, Mattisse, this Barnstar on 18 October 2006 for your tireless efforts and great contributions to India related articles. Thank-you. |
For you! -- BostonMA talk 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Epic Barnstar | |
For a fantastic collaborative effort in Hoysala Empire I award you this epic barnstar BostonMA talk 14:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
--Your contributions--
Thank you for your intelligent copy edits on Hoysala Empire article and for the numerous pages you have worked on relating to Indian topics.
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For your tireless contributions to Hoysala Empire article and for your excellent contributions to many more topics on India. Dineshkannambadi 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
Thank you. Dineshkannambadi 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC) -- For your efforts --
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For your character and openmindedness. Dineshkannambadi 03:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you. Dineshkannambadi 03:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
--Barnstar--
I award
Mattisse barnstar in appreciation of contributions to article related to
India --
Pinecar 00:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-- A barnstar for you :) --
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
Great work on Dinesh's articles. You deserve this one. :) Sarvagnya 10:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
-- THANK YOU --
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Hello Mattisse, I am glad to award this to you for your excellent and tireless contributions on articles related to History of Karnataka and continued and tireless support to Dinesh in writing FA after FA. Thank you for your contributions and look forward many more from you. KNM Talk 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC) |
I earnestly urge
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) to please
assume good faith.
— Mattisse ( Talk) 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Final comment and ending
This has been a devastating experience, as I guess it was supposed to be. I am sorry I no longer have the heart or will to go through all the comments.
I am greatly thankful for all those contacted and others, who could have added to the score against me. It gives me great insight into those who do not carry a gunny sack on there back with all my failings. It was very unpleasant going through the diffs from 2006 when I was a newbie. I now realize that I do not understand Wikipedia at all and am not cut out for this kind of experience. Thank you to those of you who gave me so much pleasure. I will be around for a few more days to answer any questions. — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.
Q.
A.
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
I used to edit some articles with Mattisse several months ago and have followed what she's been up to. What I will say is that Mattisse has not been in half as much trouble in the last several months as she was previously. She used to have AN/I threads and stuff about her or involving her quite a lot, (not about the FAC process, about various other debacles) but hasn't (or at least none I've seen much, so not as many or as lengthy) for several months. Nor has she had many about the FAC issues. So her behaviour has improved somewhat. Everyone knows that the FAC process and commenting on the articles there is intimidating or frequently involves arguments, and editors such as Mattisse should not be discouraged from doing so. Otherwise it will end up being only a few editors commenting there, as she says, and articles they like getting through, rather than there being wider discussion which could lead to greater improvements to the articles, and a wider consensus. Sticky Parkin 23:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Cyborg Ninja interjected herself in the dispute with User:Blueboar over the Caison article, implying bad things about me. Since User:Blueboar regularly deletes his page I have not looked for his responses.
Cyborg Ninja posts on AN/I in defense of Blueboar
[161] and PalaceGuard thanks her for the "heads up". [162] — Mattisse ( Talk) 19:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I agree that she has contributed some good points to FAC, and ultimately, her review of sources for major depressive disorder was a very good thing, I just felt the weeks of extra vitriol were unnecessary, and this is November and early December we're talking about and it is only early January now. The other point to remember is that in general assumption of responsibility over one's own role in conflict (or lack thereof) is often a good pointer to the future. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you really think that Blueboar was right in allowing my article Zaojing to be copy/pasted into to Caisson (Asian architecture) without allowing for discussion first? Was he right in allowing my references to be copied inaccurately into Caisson (Asian architecture)? Was he right in trying to force me to rewrite Caisson (Asian architecture) while asking nothing from PalaceGuard? I saved my article and resurrected it under a new name many months later. I entered a REDIRECT. Neither Blueboar nor Palaceguard followed up on the Caisson (Asian architecture), whereas I recreated my article and renamed it: Ancient Chinese wooden architecture. You see Caisson (Asian architecture) as a better article than Ancient Chinese wooden architecture? Did that article deserve to be gutted without discussion into Caisson (Asian architecture)? Was Blueboar right in defending this action of PalaceGuards? You see this as a fair outcome? (You can read more, above, where I responded to this accusation, if you are interested. Blueboar's connect to User:Cyborg Ninja for example who was subsequently blocked.)
?— Mattisse ( Talk) 01:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
I don't know if I have the right to call this an "Outside" view because I am listed in the evidence. Please correct me if that is the case. I will reinforce again that I have respect for those who have initiated the RfC and that I do not wish for my comments to be see as disparaging them. Also, I am glad that Casliber responded to my question above; it helped me think of what to say here. I apologize if this falls under "too long, didn't read". Finally, I really don't want to be offensive, and I want to try and seek some kind of neutrality (at least, for a few people to try and be).
My view: the problems with human nature is that humans tend to group together for mutual defense and that emotions are prone to running wild. Every day on Wikipedia, I am afraid of such a thing happening. Lets go back to my own story for an example. My past is scattered, but to be more limiting: my first experience with User:Geogre did not go well. It was during a FAC; he was very straight forward and came off rough. I took offense, my emotions took over, and we got into many fights over a few months. I realized that it happened because my emotions dominated, I took more offense then I should have, and I ended up not respecting him. I have come to appreciate the work he has done around here, and I realized that my petty feelings should not stand in the way of an encyclopedia. What does all of this mean? Well, we are all human. We all have emotional outbursts, and we all see each other in bad lights. We have Assume Good Faith as one of our core ideas in order to try and draw us back to what is best for the encyclopedia. It is really hard to do. I have a lot of problems with it. I've struggled with it my whole time here, and still do. However, that is part of human nature.
As I stated before, I am not Mattisse's friend, nor do I ever work with her. The only times we've run into each other was either at a neutral moment or on two opposite sides of a discussion. However, I realized that I was able to overcome my inability to assume good faith by making close connections with reasonable people, to run things by them first, and to vent offline and try and drop it after I purge my emotions over a situation. I was able to make a lot of progress because people were willing to help me. They were willing to look behind behavioral problems. They were willing to try and keep me occupied on various projects. They were willing to come to my defense, but not to spoil me or bail me out without me learning from my mistakes. The important thing to do is to have someone know why they are criticized, why they are blocked, why they are removed from an area (etc), but to then say that they can still contribute, to encourage them towards the future, and to show that it is not down because someone hates them. Sure, sometimes blocks are punitive, sometimes people are malicious, and sometimes problems occur. However, the human mind wants to see it far more frequently, and sometimes even malicious occurrences should be ignored for the greater good.
We are all human here. We all have the same problems. Some are able to deal with them easier than others. However, we should recognize these flaws. We should try to help each other overcome them. We should be inclusive, welcoming, and caring. Yes, people will say mean things to you over time, but most of the time those mean comments are the result of intense emotions that just spill out and are meaningless. I am not saying that this user should or should not be blocked. I am not saying that she is right or wrong. I do not want to pass judgment upon her. However, I want to make sure that we recognize that this user has devoted a lot of her time to this encyclopedia; she is intrinsically connected to it. Any results or outcomes from this will have a powerful influence over her, and will say a great deal about us as people. So lets recognize that when we are dealing with people over civility issues that we probably have problems that we should also deal with. Once we do that, maybe we can have a little more compassion, a little more understanding, and possibly, just possibly, we can overcome our differences and try to work with each other. Regardless of the results, everyone participating here should try to be a little more welcoming to each other. We should try to prevent problems that are the result of a slow build up over time. After all, it is better to gain an ally than it is to defeat an enemy. Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
I'm lucky: my dealings with Mattisse have been on a very friendly basis, and from my narrow experience, she's likeable, intelligent and lucid. But heck, Mattisse, you're upsetting a lot of good people; something must be wrong in part of the way you're approaching the interpersonal on WP. Indulge me for a moment while I talk psychology: it appears to me that you're allowing your red-hot buttons to be pushed by other users in ways they're not aware of. Some of these buttons interface with your passion for and knowledge of certain topics; others may be grounded in previous unsatisfactory experiences that you don't want to revisit in a current situation. The result is a spiralling of negative emotion in you, reinforced by other users' negative comments in a kind of feedback mechanism. Perhaps this explains how you can do such good work, then compromise it by negative, over-the-top comments towards others? The sum of it is destructive.
Now I have a vision of a Mattisse who has excised this vulnerability to her interpersonal trigger-points, and uses her strength to create positive collaborations from her passion and knowledge. How to stop the negative? It's not easy, but this might help: (1) learning to recognise where it's building to flash-point, (2) withdrawing for 12 or 24 hours and returning with a little distance from a situation, and (3) editing your more personal entries before hitting the "save" button, so that they appear too soft (they won't be for the recipients, and will have greater effect, ironically).
I think you might enjoy your interactions on WP more after a while. Tony (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
I participated in the FAC on MDD and my comments refer entirely to work there. I thought that when we had finished on the FAC were all on friendly terms, and we had all helped each other in different arenas with our styles, and we had all learnt something. At a late stage in the FAC discussion, Mattisse was the fourth highest contributor in terms of edit counts to the page, and I was the fifth highest contributor. I found that Matisse to be an very knowledgeable wikipedian, and always polite and courteous to me. I think that she made good suggestions that sometimes may not have been immediately apparent to non-experts in the areas of the page that she was interested in. It is my impression that at the start of the FAC the article had not been copy edited by several experts in the various fields relevant to the article, because it was ridden throughout by unclear text, in my opinion. The article covered a lot of ground and perhaps more than one expert was needed to cover the various topics in the article. It seems to me that Matisse and myself are knowledgeable in different disciplines relevant to the article, and, may I say that I think we worked together effectively. I think that the article is as good as it is today, partly because of Mattisse's giant contribution to the article. I can understand why the team that proposed the FAC were keen to get the article through the to FA, but I can equally understand conscientious editors wanting to get the article clear of ambiguities and misunderstandings before it got to FA. During discussion in the FAC, Mattisse sometimes came to help me and, from my point of view, protected me and made editing on the MDD FAC a friendlier place. Snowman ( talk) 01:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The circumstances of the discussions on the MDD FAC would need to be fully considered, rather than providing a series of quotes as above, because I think the energies of the several editors involved combined in a complicated way. I would have thought that most aspects of the FAR have been discussed elsewhere, and that there was no need to discuss the MDD FAC any more. I did not collaboratate in any of the other incidents listed above outside of the MDD FAC, but I hope that people will be able to come to an amicable understanding. Snowman ( talk) 01:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
One of the surest ways to get support at conduct RFC is to declare that it's unlikely to solve anything and ask people to get back to writing articles. The people who post that rarely give specifics, though. I'll try filling that gap.
Obviously there is a conduct problem here and I hope Mattisse takes steps to correct it. Having interacted with plenty of editors who were on the short end of dispute resolution (and occasionally been there myself), the best chances for real resolution occur when the concerns raised are couched in moderate language, well substantiated, and internally consistent. It is important that these standards be maintained throughout, because overreaching any part of the presentation tends to distract: the editor on the hot seat usually focuses on the overreaches and is mightily tempted to disregard the rest. Sometimes the perception (or even the reality) is that mud is getting slung. So unless particular care is taken when drafting an RFC, the undertaking becomes self-defeating.
With respect toward the majority of Casliber's presentation, particular elements stand out. If Mattisse's faults are a failure to assume sufficient good faith and failure to adequately substantiate concerns, then one would hope that the initiator of this RFC would assume good faith of him whenever possible and substantiate all concerns about Mattisse's conduct. And yet the complaint accuses Mattisse of disrupting the featured article review process in violation of the WP:POINT policy. One of the examples asserted is the FAR of Augustan literature, although the description fails to mention that it actually resulted in delisting per Mattisse's nomination. The purported dispute at the article talk page was ordinary civil discussion about the article's lack of inline citations. Older featured articles that lack any inline citations have been getting reviewed and delisted for a while, and this one had been tagged with a request for citations several months earlier (which one of the principal contributors had removed with a declaration that he refused to provide them). In good faith, it looks entirely plausible that Mattisse decided this article was less compliant with FA standards than the other one he had already nominated for review, and withdrew the previous nomination in order to prioritize appropriately.
Now I've scarcely interacted with Mattisse firsthand at all, and I have very high opinions of the people who initiated this RFC and certified it, and some of Mattisse's statements certainly exceed the standard bounds of good faith and civility. Yet it doesn't rest easily to see a request for comment that attempts to paint a proper FAR as disruption, or that characterizes the editor under scrutiny in the language of psychology (as in Attempts to engage often lead to responses which could be seen as paranoid or manipulative). If they could be seen that way but the context affords doubt, then please select one's terms with better discretion when calling out a fellow editor before his peers. Including the best interpretations along with one's concerns is what we call good faith. If we want him to improve at it then it is imperative that we demonstrate good faith.
Due to these concerns I am unable to endorse this request for comment, which is a sad thing because a request for comment is probably necessary. I leave Mattisse to sort out the comments here (or initiate contact with me if he wishes) and now I'll return to editing. You won't see much else on my edit history tonight because I'll be in another program restoring a historic photograph of construction at Mount Rushmore. Fellow editors, if you agree with this statement please join me in specifying what encyclopedia content you'll be contributing. Best wishes all. Durova Charge! 07:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
After reading Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder/restart, used as a "Detailed analysis of a FAC candidacy" above, I can see there are two ways of viewing what happened:
It is likely that both views are accurate.
However, even without assuming good faith by Mattisse, and given that b) is the most accurate view, how much disruption and damage has Mattissee done in that review, compared to the good she has done?
And when good faith by Mattisse is assumed (which isn't difficult given the amount of time and effort she spent improving the article, and that more than one other participant agreed with her assessments), is her behaviour in that FAC really deserving of a RFC? I have known some users get a BarnStar for such dedication to an article and to the project as a whole.
My feeling is that it is view a) which is the most accurate, and credit should be given to Mattisse for the work she did during that process. And more than that - some recognition should be given for the frustration she must have felt at what happened, and that this RFC is hardly likely to make her feel any the less frustrated.
Users who endorse this summary:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
I've observed Mattisse on a few FAC's, and I really didn't form an opinion one way or another. Usually, long-winded editors bore the crap out of me, so, I rarely read what they say. I'm not a big fan of RFC's, since they're just a giant bitch session, but Casliber has made some strong points. And I trust Cas. But all of that's irrelevant. This morning, Mattisse did this to an innocent conversation about an ongoing FAC on my user talk. Those of you who know me understand that I don't take kindly to this, and probably would have termed it "vandalism" in a stern warning to her page. But then I realized that this one edit on my user talk was really kind of mean. Deleting my, wholly irrelevant and silly, comment to User:SandyGeorgia, while adding in a wholly irrelevant but pointed comment. My only interaction with Mattisse was here where she was in an edit conflict with me while I tried to clean up citations for an FAC. Her response was on my talk page was rather odd and almost passive aggressive. So my view of this situation is that Mattisse has to get over her obsession with SG, quit playing martyrs, and maybe be topic blocked (or is it banned) from FAC's, since they cause her so much grief. And she really ought to retract her latest edit to my page (although I've done it already). Otherwise, there's really not much to see here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 10:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
The mention of Che Guevara being defeatured in the Statement of Dispute could be interpreted as blaming Mattisse. I had been editing the Che Guevara article for a few weeks when it was defeatured. I didn't get the impression that Mattisse caused it to be defeatured or (as far as I remember) disrupted the process. It was my impression that the defeaturing was based on detailed lists of concerns by some other editors acting as FA reviewers, concerned mainly with NPOV and formatting. Although we did a lot of work, not all the problems listed were fixed.
The Statement of Dispute says "Mattisse had a lengthy dispute with Coppertwig over Che Guevara". As far as I remember and as far as I'm aware, there have not been any content disputes between Mattisse and myself at the Che Guevara article.
Users who endorse this summary:
This RfC contains many old diffs, and is not formatted in such a way as to make it easy to find any more recent diffs that may be present. For this and other reasons I'm not commenting on most of the issues raised here. I'm just clarifying a few specific points.
I hate to add to the burden, Mattisse, of all the things in this RfC which taken together may be rather overwhelming for you. But, I feel a need to clear up a couple of things.
You said in "Reply to Sticky Parkin" in the Response section of this RfC, "User:Coppertwig has denied any notable problems with me or my behavior in his outside view posted in this RFC." Actually, that's not what I meant. When I said "content disputes", I was only referring to disputes about article content.
You also said in the Response section of this RfC, re Che Guevara, "I would remind you that User:Coppertwig and User:Redthoreau controlled the content of that article for quite a while." I disagree, and with or without the proposed remedy "Stop unsupported allegations", I would appreciate it if you would either strike out that statement, or substantiate it.
I really appreciate the positive energy I've seen in your comments of the past few days, and I hope things go well for you.
Users who endorse this summary:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Noting for the record that Mattisse has continued to fail to assume good faith and to make unsupported and inaccurate statements, here and elsewhere, since this RFC started. Some examples (not an exhaustive list) are:
I hope these sorts of insinuations, unsupported accusations and failure to AGF (detrimental to a collegial editing environment) will cease once this RFC closes. There has been no call for Mattisse to be banned or sanctioned: only for a change in these behaviors. [178]
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
My dealings with Matisse have been uniformly pleasant. I can't speak to all the issues mentioned above, but I can say something about her dealings with user:Dineshkannambadi. First, let me say unequivocally, to whosoever wrote the statement above, that what is given as an example of user:Mattisse's racist comment is not even remotely racist. There is no "racial" (whatever that means) difference between residents of southern India who speak Tamil and those who speak Kannada; the differences are ethnic, as indeed there are among Kannada speakers themselves. All Mattise is doing there is pointing to a long simmering dispute on Wikipdia that, in my limited observation, is mostly the creation of the latter group. It is like a chihuahua (Kannada speakers) nipping at the heels of an elephant (Tamil speakers), a "dispute" that looms large only in one pair of eyes. I've seen evidence of this cultural inferiority-complex on other Wikipedia pages, such as India, where Kannada-speaking editors have relentlessly nickel-and-dimed issues of no consequence all because it makes their region (long-neglected and diminished in their view) come out looking a little better. In addition, I have found this "Kannada nationalism" on Wikipedia to be infused with Hindu nationalism, as is evidenced, for example, in this post by user:Dineshkannambadi on the Talk:India page:
"I dont Phoo ( sic) Phoo ( sic) your clever 'number of hits on google' arguement ( sic). I am just amused, seeing a clear religious inclination emerging in your debates, of which I advice ( sic) you against. The languages these writers, Iqbal and Galib ( sic) wrote in is ( sic) hardly considered native to Indian soil, though I am sure their writings are highly cherished. The influence of Urdu/Persian on Indian history is at best minimal to Indian culture (16 ( sic) century onwards) and this does not compare competitivly ( sic) to a great language like Kannada language which is not only native to India, but has evolved on Indian soil for over 2000 years, has influenced Tamil, a classical language of India, has been an administrative language for almost 1600 years and has a proven "extant" literature from the 9th century, with numerous references to Kannada writers from as early as 5th-6th century. Why should Galib ( sic) and Iqbal get the same stage as the seven gems of modern Kannada." (Italics and "sic"s mine.)
To which I replied:
"What soil is Urdu native to? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iran? Arabia? It was created smack in the middle of India, in an around Delhi and UP. Muslims (according to 2001 Census of India) comprise 13.4% of India's population and a large majority are speakers of Urdu. Many more than there are Kannada speakers."
As for user:Dineshkannambadi's Wikipedia articles, the limited evidence that I have examined in three— Kingdom of Mysore (currently in FAR), Kannada literature and Western Chalukya architecture—is one of an editor with poor writing skills. My impression is that in the past, user:Dineshkannambadi has leaned on user:Mattisse in order to turn his (Wikipedia) sow's ears into silk purses, but has given her little credit for her extensive work that, in most cases, has gone far beyond routine copy editing. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This is one of the very rare occasions that I am commenting at an RFC. I generally avoid them like the plague. I am a huge believer in leaving those writing the project alone to do so,and ignoring their odd peculiarities. However, as Mattisse does not fall into that category, I am, after much goading from Mattisse finally here. I shall not comment on the grossly unfair attack on user:Dineshkannambadi immediatly above, one of Wikipedia's most entheusiastic editors in the architectural field, lttle known to those ouside it - that can come later. I want to concentrate on Mattisse; she damges main-space pages so I will remain silent about her, no longer. Where possible I avoid her, occasionally she makes this impossible, even to the extent of removing facts from featured articles or nominating them for FARC just to gain a re-action. My observations of her are that she fixes an editor or page in her sights and then refuses to be detracted. She will attack their work and them personally. She does not just bait people, or argue - she makes their wiki-life intolerable. One of her strategies is to turn up at a high profile page, cut across those who have written it and monitor it and insist on her views being inserted, if there is any hesitation by those monitoring the page, then she attacks them in any way possible - without justification. Basically, Mattisse's arrival on a main-space page is trouble - the temptation for a timid editor to just back off must be enormous, and probably wise. Mattisse is one of the very few editors I have come across here, who really does hamper building the encyclopedia, this is not Wiki-politics - this is damage to mainspace and those creating and promoting it. I have no doubt as a consequence of me saying this, she will stalk my edits and pages I monitor even further, but it has to be said: the project would be better off without her. Mattisse needs to go to arbitration, I have never brought an Arbcase, and have no intention of doing so now - but this is surely where Mattisse needs to be. Giano ( talk) 09:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.
1) Mattisse to refrain from allegations of others' conduct without supplying evidence of same. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
2) Ban Mattisse indefinitely
3) Given how this is unfolding, is it worth considering mentorship of some form? Someone (hopefully) who can be on Mattisse's 'side' as it were, in the future and help with analysis and reflection? OK, this is a highly stressful situation, but (often) so can be FAC and GAN (where other blow-ups have occurred), hence maybe a mentor will help smoothe some of these situations in future. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Blueboar I have explained twice above, and I still believe he was wrong in not following policy by allowing my article to be copy/pasted into another, then defending the other editor at my expense. I regret the incident and will never enter Mediation again so that I will not be put in that position. User:LessHeard vanU and I are on good terms as we mutually decided to drop the issue. (And he was reprimanded in ArbCom for his role in taking User:Zeraeph's side in the dispute and in unblocking User:Zeraeph. He has admitted his error and User:Zeraeph is now banned for a year. User:Coppertwig has denied any notable problems with me or my behavior in his outside view posted in this RFC. As to the main problem that I gather from the diffs presented in the RFC, that I offended SandyGeorgia, I admit to this and I am sorry for doing this. I admit that I made frivolous, unkind remarks and that I continued to make them, even after I knew they were upsetting her. I will take great care to no longer do that. I apologize to SandyGeorgia.
I have been gratified by the wonderful support I have received in this RFC and am truly grateful to all those that chose to go out of their way and be helpful and kind to me. I have learned much from them and am very touched that so many chose to see my mistakes as mistakes. I have received two barnstars because of the RFC. — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
Awarded for championing the ideals of encyclopedic writing and bringing about countless article improvements as part of her GA review work. Jayen 466 15:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC) |
--- Major depressive disorder---
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
A barnstar for Mattisse in recognition of her work in helping bring ' Major depressive disorder to FA status. SilkTork * YES! 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
I feel the warmth from the community which I have never felt before. So I thank everyone who participated in this RFC. Overall, this was a good experience from which I have hopefully permanently benefited and my behavior in the future will show this. This is the first time I have felt part of the Wiki community in the almost three years I have been here. I cannot express my gratitude enough. — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
4) Given the accusations by Casliber and SandyGeorgia listed against me appear largely unsupported by others editors, and pertain to a tiny percentage of my overall participation on Wikipedia, I think this whole RFC can be seen as an over reaction by Calisber and SandyGeorgia to the enormous stress created by FAC. I urge them to desist in their accusations as not productive and to assume good faith.
Casliber 's allegations are mostly over one FAC article Major depressive disorder, which he appears to consider his, and which I am the second highest contributor, all of my contributions being during the FAC and therefore putting me in the position of largely being responsible for upgrading the article to FAC status. He might have been stressed also over his ArbCom election. I asked him an election question whether "Cheers" was an appropriate signature as an Arbitrator, as he lists this question in his allegations against me. He made a joke of my question at the time. However, he has now dropped the "Cheers" when he signs ArbCom statements. Likewise, SandyGeorgia's accusations revolve mostly around FAC and include a very small sample of my total participate there, largely complaints over my attempts to upgrade the Major depressive disorder article, from which she may have experienced much stress. FAC is stressful for anyone who tries to participate there. I suggest both Casliber and SandyGeorgia assume good faith and let me continue to contribute to Wikipedia without further harassment from either of them. I suggest that all of us, including Casliber and SandyGeorgia try not to let the stressful atmosphere of FAC (and suggestion or complaints made about FAC) get to us. — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
(subsequent material moved to talk page here)
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.