Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:49, 30 December 2008 editCasliber (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators200,919 editsm again← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:50, 30 December 2008 edit undoCasliber (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators200,919 editsm addNext edit →
Line 105:		Line 105:

	* that I 'tried to get her blocked'.		* that I 'tried to get her blocked'.

			* of Dweller

	===Insinuations on conduct of (unspecified) group of users at FAC===		===Insinuations on conduct of (unspecified) group of users at FAC===

Revision as of 08:50, 30 December 2008

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: 11:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC).

Mattisse (talk · contribs · logs)
Previous RfCs on Mattisse: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse,Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse 2
For more information on Mattisse's sockpuppetry: ]

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

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.

Mattisse continues to make frequent comments insinuating that there is a 'clique' of users around FAC whose conduct is somehow questionable (and not providing evidence when asked), and has misrepresented my previous 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 corroding the morale in the 'pedia. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Cause of concern

{Add summary here, provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.}

My first in-depth interaction with Mattisse came about while nominating major depressive disorder 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. and being 'driven off' I found this hard to take as my impression was that she started the confrontational tone and yet accused me of the same.

Timeline of mdd fac

I tried to construct a sequence of interactions from the beginning of the FAC until the time of Eusebeus support (it took me 2 hours to look through these) as follows:

here Mattisse joins in with some comments.

here I reply 28 minutes later, agreeing with both, and then notifying I had reworded 4 hours later.

here Mattise makes a suggestion which I believe we took up

here I concede Mattisse's point on a source Kent and this has been hard to find.

here Mattisse highlights prose, which I answered here and tried to fix up but was tricky.

here I think Mattisse misinterprets me, as I didn't say I was going to use the word conjectural and I try and clarify...

here you make a suggestion, and here I agree with Mattisse

The next few diffs we talk about rating scales, and Mattisse says this which is odd as the extra ref I got Mattise later removed and I 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 I did concede we did not get on the religion issue sooner, but it is frustrating for me to see it frequently talked about yet insanely hard to cite, until I (finally) found one on google after juggling a bit

here Mattisse makes a note of primary sources, I concede it has taken time to whittle them out

here Mattisse lists some, I kept you updated 2 hours later

here we are back to religion again but the mood is still good as far as I can see; I am having no problem at this stage.

In between, Garrondo notes the 'non-asked for little speech'

...and here it starts. Note I do not/did not have a problem with paras 1-10, though was taken aback by "Further, I am shocked (naive as I am) that anyone would register a "Support" for this article on an important topic without carefully reading it through."

here I begin explaining and trying to address.

here Mattisse pulls me up on nihilism (which is actually mentioned in some psych textbooks, but she was right in that it wasn't the right word. Still Mattisse is starting to get bitey here. And here I concede the point.

here Mattisse chimes in and repeats herself again and complain about points not being addressed. This speech was uncalled for and quite threatening. There was material cropping up which I was dealing with steadily, and had dealt with some of them by this time. As I said, some refs were elusive.

here I am staying calm and positive

....here - Mattisse complains of page length and decide to question other editors' supports.

Meanwhile others are attempting to address concerns still

here I make a measured comment as by this stage I am becoming worn out by M's previous comments and I say that "reams of self-righteous invective and feeling like I am being held to ransom." was pretty much what the comments felt like to me.

Mattisse apologises here

[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Major_depressive_disorder&diff=next&oldid=249520639 here I try and show my appreciation and note the points you have mentioned are valid.

and here Mattisse starts again

So here I try and wave an olive branch.

here Mattisse rejoins in a more constructive/neutral way

and here is a pretty drastic comment but I do concede added in a neutral manner.

here Mattisse sort of half offers to help...and here I try to show my appreciation.

here is a thankyou from you.

but here Mattisse decides not to look in her book and qualify with a rather exaggerated and inaccurate statement about references.

Aftermath

I tried to raise this with Mattisse on her talk page (easier to read from there with my comments beginning in the middle.

here Mattisse feels my participation was not satisfactory (despite >200 edits ????) and states she thinks I have ADD. (Note that I was bemused more than anything else by this)

Dweller warns her for it here.

To which Mattisse responds thus, describing a fear of being blocked for replying to me.

her final response upon my posting a chronology was to blank the section.

2nd segment suggests I threatened blocking her for opposing the mdd FAC.

here edit summary make comment about fear of Dweller blocking her for using the word 'damn'

here suggests my link with Dweller was used to drive her away from FAC.

and again that I 'tried to get her blocked'.

stating she will 'stay clear' of Dweller

Insinuations on conduct of (unspecified) group of users at FAC

on a 'small group of people controlling FAC'
and again
and again
alludes to strongly linked group of editors, to which she was challenged to list them. For ongoing discussion which ensued, see ] about half way down. Mattisse concludes she is not crazy enough to name names and

begins another discussion casting doubt on FAC (whole thread currently at User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Congrats.21), and calling User:Jennavecia a block happy admin

alludes to 'clique' of editors in an oppose vote at RfA.

'no-one has the nerve to oppose...it is a setup' comment about FAC

Other

this odd exchange on Risker's talk page, where Mattisse appears to cast aspersions on Risker's impartiality in arb cases (whole thread linked)

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

Desired outcome

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.

What I would like to see is for Mattisse to either provide evidence for or drop allegations of an FAC cabal, and for her to desist from comments about my conduct which I feel are untrue, such as fear of my supposed bullying tactics.

However I thought her last message to me was so bizarre, I question her ability to see this objectively. I hope I am wrong. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC) begin, ended with section blanking, final reply from Mattisse

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Response

{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.}

Response to concerns

{Add summary here.}

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Outside view

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.

Outside view by

{Enter summary here.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Proposed solutions

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.

Template

1) Mattisse to refrain from allegations of others' conduct without supplying evidence of same. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discussion

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.