Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

As Moni Karanacs (duh) noted above, there was an ANI thread, currently still open, about Mattisse's behavior. The current verdict seems to be absolutely nothing. The majority of the discussion has just been argument between the two parties, therefore I am not really sure how this started or how we will fix it. Then again, that's up to the Arbitrators. Ceranthor 20:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse's contributions to these areas are duly noted, yet this cannot continue. I urge the committee to accept this case and to settle the matter before it continues to escalate. Synergy 20:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A block should not have been done by Tznkai. I think this was out of line and should have been handled by an uninvolved admin. Synergy 22:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in the most recent incident and one in January. I am also listed as a plague on Mattisse's talk page. Thus, I also urge the committee to accept this case. Mattisse has done a great deal of work that has improved the project significantly. Unfortunately, she has a nasty habit of taking things way over the top, to the point that the comments she makes seem out of touch with reality. Ceranthor is apparently not up to speed on the history here, so I would ask that the committee look at the pattern, which is one that dates far back, and not focus on any one incident. The latest serves only as a recent example of a problem that Mattisse has become known for. لennavecia 20:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relevant discussion: User talk:Jennavecia#Please revert your removal of GAR
• "Please join the arbitration against me. All negative comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration under my name. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 4:33 pm, Today (UTC−4)"

I, too, would like to see something done in regards to Mattisse since I appear on one of her apparent evidence "hit lists" here. either way (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mattisse case may have a number of editors added who have been involved with adverse relations with her and where she has exhibited problematic conduct. These might include me (in a fairly major way), SandyGeorgia, Fainites (not sure the level), Giano (not sure how he would rate it), Cirt, Awadewit and Risker (actually could leave off the last two as minor and would make the scope of this unwieldy). All are similar with her becoming into conflict on some matter and then proceeding to make life difficult, at times with a level of paranoia and misintepretation which makes ongoing dialogue very difficult. I am not sure whether listing parties as involved is helpful to clarify the scope of her interpersonal problems or obfuscates the overall picture. Silktork, Lingnut and Durova have attempted to mediate, and then other old issues secondary have become entangled (eg Cirt and Jayen scientology). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I entered a statement at the most recent conduct RfC and attempted to smooth the waters a few times afterward. Last night I proposed an alternative solution in order to try to resolve this on the community level. As of this writing it has 5 supports, 3 opposes, and extensive discussion. Objections range from calls for no action at all to suggestions for a topic ban. Mattisse had literally invited me to propose a sanction minutes before: "Put restrictions on me, instead of all this whinning about no restrictions on me. Restrict me from FAC. Go ahead. Just stop this endless whinning over my behavior. If I am that bad, then get rid of me."[1] The proposal was the mildest I could craft and milder than Mattisse herself had suggested, yet very shortly after it went live Mattisse raised objections against it.

Although Mattisse has offered to withdraw from the disputed processes, she has made similar pledges multiple times in the past and in all instances has broken the pledge shortly afterward. When questioned about that, she replies that her return had been requested by other persons. Her input is often very insightful and constructive. Yet it appears that this editor is also exceptionally thin skinned: prone to perceive malicious intent in normal editorial discussion.

It is possible to both sincere and mistaken in one's perceptions. Trouble arises when the misunderstanding cannot be cleared up and instead spreads to new fora. This has been occurring at important content processes (GAC, peer review, etc.) and there's a danger of it driving away other useful contributors.

The community-based proposal currently has majority support but not clear consensus. Having proposed it seems to have gotten me added to her list of perceived foes even though it was done at her own request. If the Committee does not accept a case now, it is likely that more people will undergo the exhausting experience of trying to help and eventually getting spurned for their efforts. Durova^Charge! 21:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Mattisse's statement above she asserts "Meanwhile, I will not be contributing to the encyclopedia until this is cleared up, one way or another." Subsequent to that pledge she has made 22 edits to a featured article candidate and supported its candidacy.[2] Durova^Charge! 22:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing the above comment, in light of her clarification. Durova^Charge! 23:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This situation is not improving. The disruption is wearing and has a chilling effect. The misrepresentations and assumptions of bad faith percieved by editors (including Mattisse) cause huge upset and bad feeling. I needs to be looked at by the uninvolved.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That blocking (below) is a bit sudden given it's before ArbCom surely?Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement with Mattisse has been brief, but troubling, and seems indicative of overall problems

On March 18 I reverted a message on her talk page that deceptively attributed comments out of context as if they were made on her talk page, she responded by reverting with the edit summary "revertin unwaranted interference on my talk page merely to hid e evidence regrding another editor" at which point I reverted again (removing the comments properly this time), saying "Do not post comments authored by other users as if they had made them. This is disruptive and deceptive. The use of user talk pages is a privilege associated with constructive editing. Stop immediately" While she did desist, she decided to re add the comments to her talk page archives here and here. Even assuming good faith, this seems to be at best, missing the point, and worst, sneaky behavior. Furthermore and more troubling, in keeping these notes to her self, and with the current "plague" list on her page here, Mattise has displayed a battleground mentality incompatible with Wikipedia policy, practice, and goals.

Therefore, I suggest that the committee consider the possibility of disposing this by motion, simply banning Mattisse for some period of time for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. I honestly don't know why I or another administrator hasn't done so before we got here. I have nothing for or against her personally, and I hear she's a good contributor in a number of places, but Wikipedia is not a place for airing personal grudges. If you can't stop, you belong elsewhere.

--Tznkai (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

I've blocked Mattisse indefinitely for treating Wikipedia as a battleground as described above. I invite the Committee to confirm, modify, or overturn, but the problematic behavior was continuing in process, so this otherwise qualified as routine administrative action.--Tznkai (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I've made my reasoning insufficiently clear. In the time since this RfAr has been opened, Mattisse has continued to add comments to her Plague/Torment thread. That behavior is clearly against behavioral policy, in addition she has insisted that she was not going to participate here. Obviously, others disagree with my actions, and I have no problem with others undoing my block if they feel that my rationale was flawed, and I am willing to do it myself in a bit if requested.--Tznkai (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And unblocked.--Tznkai (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen in a previous RfC, my opinions on the matter differ from most of the above. I am not posting to wage war, nor will I directly refute anything anyone else has stated. However, I believe that there are a lot of good people that, momentarily, are not looking at the situation in the right light. I am not Mattisse's friend, and I have been attacked by Mattisse more than most involved here, but I feel that this is inappropriate, and I feel that the ramifications of this case will be shameful enough that I do not want to even know of its existence as it unfolds. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Mattisse has never, for my knowledge, supported any of my FACs or anything that I have really been involved in. I have, more than most of those above, been in more situations that I could portray myself as the victim. However, I doubt this will put more weight behind my words for most involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Followup - I am deeply troubled by the statement by Erik9. The threat of banning or an actual banning of those who fear that others are working against them would have horrible ramifications. There is a history of cabalism, people working together on IRC, through email, etc. We all know it. Yes, it is bad to assume bad faith and it causes problems. However, when it is one user versus a group that one user can easily be backed into a corner. To put forth such an idea as Erik9 did would only further the gang mentality and destroy any hopes for true consensus building. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the plague list too. I don't know that there is much to add to what has been said before, except to comment to Tznkai in reply to "I honestly don't know why I or another administrator hasn't done so" (blocked Mattisse) "before we got here."... to me the answer is obvious, because everyone involved in this has bent over backwards to assume good faith about Mattisse. No one should be faulted for that! I think disposal by motion as Tznkai suggests, might be a way to avoid a long drawn out case and more hurt feelings. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems things have degenerated enough for this case to be accepted. Placing a list of usernames under the heading of "Plague" on her userpage is not a very good way to encourage collaborative editing. I mentioned on the FAR talk page that I didn't know if all of her disruption should lead to a topic ban or not, but I definitely think something needs to be done now. - Tex (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to take a position on this dispute, but I do think that Tznkai's action in indef blocking Mattisse was a little bit much. This matter is before this committee, it will certainly be accepted, and this committee will then act as it sees fit. I suggest that Tznkai's action is a bit premature and perhaps presumptuous (thank you, Spiro Agnew) and I suggest the committee vacate it without prejudice to its final determination.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update With that situation resolved, I think ArbComm is going to earn their big bucks on this one. What action can ArbComm possibly take that will keep Mattisse as a productive editor and eliminate the friction that unfortunately has happened? I don't think punitive or semipunitive (such as "if she does this, any uninvolved admin may ..." because that's just putting off the inevitable and I think she'd take it in the worst possible way anyway. I'm thinking that almost any outcome of this Arb will lose us Mattisse, either now or shortly thereafter, and I think that would be a blow to the project. Answers? I don't have any, I'm just a content writer who uses his tools rather rarely. Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the attack on Mattisse at AN/I that precipitated this RFAR shameful, opportunistic and over the top, and have probably already made my view on this more clear than would have been necessary.

Mattisse reviewed two of my articles for GA (one passed, the other did not), and I remain immensely impressed by Mattisse's professional judgment, which seemed to me in an entirely different league. I have noticed the squabbles, and I have also noticed that there is a regular group of editors who cannot refrain from adding their ha'pennyworth of criticism of Mattisse whenever there is any evidence that there might be a chance of a fight. That dynamic is unhealthy.

More generally speaking, I also question the recurrent pattern of escalating disputes and then laying them at the arbcom's doorstep, bypassing steps such as mediation. Arbcom is a hammer, and a hammer is only ever good for one thing. Subtlety, or the building of mutual trust and rapport, is beyond it. I would have thought mediation might be a much more productive idea in the present case, if any of the parties feel a need. Failing that, pay Mattisse's opinions some respect; I have met few editors indeed whose only agenda appears to be encyclopedic integrity, or who are better able to work towards it. Jayen466 22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There might be merit in using moderators or facilitators on a routine basis in processes that often spark ill-feeling. This could be an offshoot of the current mediation system, and the aim would be to try to catch a few of these situations before they end up here. If anyone has any bright ideas on how this could work rather than just sound good, there is a thread on it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Facilitation_rather_than_Mediation Jayen466 23:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on Mattise's plague list as as well, or as she now calls it a "torment" list. I hadn't intended to comment, as I said to Mattisse on my talk page, but I feel I have to respond to Tznkai's indef block. I've had my fair share of problems with Mattisse, and perhaps a topic ban might now be appropriate, but I'm deeply unhappy about her block. Her recent behaviour has been no different to her long-term behaviour so far as I can see, and needs to be dealt with differently. Primarily by her recognising that fault doesn't always lie with others, and putting old grudges behind her. I'm hoping this final step in the process can be a wake-up call for Mattisse, but I don't see blocking her now as either a necessary or constructive step. --Malleus Fatuorum

It has frequently been assumed that I mentored Mattisse, though that was never the case. I did consider it, as Mattisse did name me as a possible mentor, but the conditions in which I felt mentoring would be successful were not available, so I declined that offer. However, I did offer Mattisse friendship and support. Not the guidance or advise of someone more experienced, but simply the sympathetic ear of a fellow editor. At a time of considerable stress for Mattisse - when she would normally lash out at others - having a friend she could talk with enabled her to put matters into perspective and not feel alienated, misunderstood and rejected. As a result she calmed down and was able to put her considerable efforts (which are acknowledged and appreciated) to good effect without distressing others. Unfortunately our discussions came to an end mainly through my own poor comments rather than Mattisse's doing, and it appears she has drifted back into a position of isolation and vulnerability.

To give a fuller background to the situation. I was an advocate for Mattisse back in the days of the AMA, when she was part of an earlier ArbCom. At that time I became swamped and exhausted by Mattisse's behaviour and resigned as her advocate. Her later criticism of my actions I found grossly unjust and hurtful, and I became very angry - much in the way that people speaking out here in this case have become hurt and angry by her behaviour. I spoke out in the recent RFC in response to Ottava Rima's subtle question about the ability of people to be impartial in relation to Mattisse because she has a way of making people respond emotionally rather than rationally. In reading through that RFC back in January, I began to notice that there was a lot of fluff and outcry for very little substance. I looked into the article at the heart of the RFC, the Major depressive disorder article, and found that Mattisse had made considerable contributions to that article. Her passion, commitment and attention to detail was quite extraordinary. So much so that it appears to have worn down other people involved. And the other people involved then reacted very badly toward Mattisse. As I read through the history of that article, I began to see Mattisse's world. And Ottava Rima's comments began to make more sense. Editing Wikipedia can be emotional and stressful - there is a warning when we click on the Edit button "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it." Yet people react badly toward a well intentioned editor who wants to see improvements. And their reaction winds up the well intentioned editor so that matters start to disintegrate. We now have a call for an ArbCom on the basis of this?. Hardly a disruptive statement. Hardly merciless. Hardly vandalistic.

I had been hurt by Mattisse and had lashed out at her in the past. But when I started to look into her world, I realised the worth that was there for this project, and that with just a little bit of warmth, support and encouragement she could continue to be an asset and could grow. If there is to be an ArbCom here I hope that the solution to be found will be a warm and supportive one that the community can be proud of. A punitive solution in revenge for emotional hurt will not do any of us any good. SilkTork *^YES! 22:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made this post at ANI today, which sums up my perceptions of what is going on. I don't know what else to say about it other than it's very sad that this has become necessary. Mattisse's posting across other users' talk pages begging them to join in the ArbCom against her [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] is a perfect example of the foot-shooting behavior that makes her claims often seem like malingering. There is no in-between or constructive criticism with Mattisse it seems. There is only with her or hate her—in her own mind; that she cannot see the efforts her fellow editors have gone to praise her contributions while gently encouraging her to drop her interpersonal conflicts is just as sad. I genuinely wish her peace because I do not think she gets it here at Wikipedia. I wouldn't wish this case on ArbCom members either. No good will come of it, but revisiting this every 3 months is just as futile. --Moni3 (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had no direct involvement with Mattisse that I can recall, though we have both commented at the current debate at Talk:The Age of Reason. Her behaviour there seems unacceptable to me; and among the comments of hers I've seen elsewhere (I think almost all at FAC) there are more examples that have led me to hope she never comments on one of my FACs. I've hoped to avoid ever having to interact with her. She may be an asset to the encyclopedia in other ways but I would like to see a definite end to this behaviour, via blocking or banning. Based on her past behaviour I see little hope that a topic ban or good behaviour probation would be worthwhile. I am glad to see that the case looks like it will be accepted. Mike Christie (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that I don't have high hopes that this will go very well, if that's an acceptable thing to say. My reason is this: the whole focus of an Arb case is on the individuals involved... heck, Mattisse's name's atop the page! and here I am, talking about Mattisse!.. And the format seems as if the people are squared off against each other, toe-to-toe. For that reason, I must humbly predict that this Arb case, if accepted, is quite likely to devolve into a big mess. Mattise does very commendably well when he/she does not perceive him/herself to be in conflict with others. Unfortunately, the whole format of an Arb case (as I said) simply looks and smells adversarial. And Mattisse emphatically does not do well when he/she perceives him/herself to be in conflict with someone. What should Arbs do if they accept the case? Neither carrots nor sticks directed at Mattisse are likely to provide a basis for long-term, positive change – since both can be perceived as messages "about Mattisse", rather than as feedback on the dynamics of interactions. Ditto for a mentor; after a while, it will all seem as though the mentor is taking sides or evaluating Mattisse personally rather than providing unbiased feedback on behavior. That's not likely to help Mattisse in any meaningful way. Probably the only hope is a strong request for Mattisse to voluntarily disengage immediately and for a long time whenever anything seems to be becoming a conflict. This may involve dropping articles near and dear to his/her heart. If he/she is unwilling to drop articles that he/she feels passionate about, then... I don't see how he/she can avoid believing that every disagreement is an intensely personal conflict. Again in my humble opinion, speaking merely as a well-wishing colleague, Mattisse does not need to focus upon him/herself, nor upon any other individuals named here or elsewhere. In fact, as I said here, Mattisse emphatically needs to stop focusing on other people... Instead of seeing every disagreement as a personal attack, he/she needs to evaluate his/her words and actions, analyzing how that behavior is most likely to be interpreted by an average individual. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with G-guy below that Mattisse has been trying especially hard lately. I also agree that more recent events should be given much more weight than older ones. I also agree that the way to deal with Mattisse is to minimize comments that might create a perception that the situation is hostile, and instead focus merely on a few points of behavior, or a few editorial points. Having said that, I still will be pleasantly shocked if this goes well. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The incident which precipitated this request for arbitration was a pretty minor one: Mattisse nominated Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology for a community GAR. Such nominations happen all the time and are encouraged because the good article process relies upon reassessment to maintain standards to a much greater extent than the featured article process does.

Unfortunately, minor events involving Mattisse easily spiral out of control. I experienced this myself in February over Scientology in Germany. However, I'm not aware of many other flashpoints since January, and my impression is that Mattisse has been making a determined effort to avoid such conflicts and (apart from this incident, for which she later apologized) I have had entirely positive interactions with her since then.

She can overreact to criticism and disagreement, but the simple solution (for me) is to underreact in response. In this incident, an overreaction to a normal procedure may have triggered the chain reaction. Where the overreaction is accidental, I have a great deal of sympathy: no editor should be made to walk on eggshells because of another's sensitivities. Where I see signs of deliberate exploitation of Mattisse's Achilles heel, my sympathy evaporates instantly.

If there is to be an arbitration case here, I urge arbitrators to concentrate on recent activity, censure those who dig up past history and old grievances, and look for small measures to alter the dynamic. Otherwise, the RfArb may become the train wreck that Ling.Nut forsees above. Geometry guy 21:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, much like in the recent ScienceApologist (SA) case, here you have an example of an extremely productive, vested/established contributor who also causes more then his/her share of problems. The corrective action in the SA case, as far as I know, appeared to work ok, so I suggest something along those lines here. If "supervised editing", however, doesn't seem the right way to go, then perhaps a more severe restriction is, unfortunately, in order. Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been informed that the SA remedy didn't work out that well. Nevertheless, I notice that in that case the Committee did try to come up with a new and different kind of corrective action and I commend the effort. I hope you'll keep trying. Dealing with difficult, established contributors is a thorny problem. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been steadily handling two cases per month, and accepting four. You are headed for trouble at this rate. You either have to find a way to work a lot faster or accept fewer cases. It seems to me that this case can be handled by the community, or at least, that an attempt at a community ban from reviewing is the next step. Looie496 (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The belief that everyone is out to get you may easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only effective method to deal with such editors is to ban them, the sooner, the better. Erik9 (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that in any way helpful or to the point?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This problem existed a couple of years ago, before Mattisse contributed as much to GAR or FAR, when she received several blocks, some of which were for similar stuff. I don't see these problems at GAR/FAR as such a big deal as the previous problems, and presumably others have sort of felt the same, and not been able to find a reason to block, as until just now she's lasted for some time without receiving any block. Hence, banning from GAR/FAR is not the answer. This 'list' for instance, is not solely about GAR or FAR and not something carried out on it. I suppose if need be the GAR/FAR issue could be dealt with now, and if the earlier issues return it could be dealt with then, but that seems like a patchy solution. Not being on the receiving end for some years I now find it hard to see the unpleasant parts of her personality as a big deal, so suggest just letting Mattisse do their thing, but I appreciate I haven't been on the receiving end to fully experience what it's like recently. It's just a personality trait, we all have them (hopefully) :):) and we can either work with an individual or not, there will always be people who can get on with her, or new users, or the majority of the time when she's doing ok and not falling out with anyone. So to summarise- the issue is not just GAR or FAR, but maybe it's not so important anyway? Sticky Parkin 00:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know why there have been so many cases against Mattisse made over the years - sockpuppetry, verbal assault, harassment, hoarding, and more - and yet this problem continues today. We want to assume good faith, even in the light of obvious bad faith from Mattisse, even when she's been convicted of it. Is this wikilingo and detached arbitration really working? I merely need to state one diff to make my point, and it is the be-all end-all of diffs: [15]