Jump to content

Wikinews:Dispute resolution/Brian McNeil and Mattisse

Add links
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Close (as an uninvolved party in this dispute); Since Brian has withdrawn from this arena, and Mattisse is ok with an interaction ban, I'm closing this on the proviso that these 2 contributors stay out of each others way for the time being - and on the understanding that should further dispute arise between these 2 contributors, this DR may be reopened, to keep all material in one place. BarkingFish (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Per an ongoing situation, and my comments above, this dispute resolution request is reopened, previous comments will be compacted, and new statements on this dispute taken from both parties. BarkingFish (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brian McNeil and User:Mattisse

[edit]
This discussion is collapsed. Please comment below. 

Statement by involved party: Brian McNeil

[edit]

Mattisse took it upon xyrself to try and intervene in Comments namespace sparring with an apparent homophobe. Proposing we all self-censor to avoid offending someone (xyr?) was sharply rebutted, provoking Mattisse to bring up xyr perceived persecution by myself. That despite having reviewed some of xyr article contributions since the prior dispute, and agreeing with a remark that a recent obit could have been far more in-depth.

This is not going to go away. This is behaviour imported from The Other Place. Laid out below is my analysis of some of that, with supporting diffs, and I am quite confident that the Wikinews community will be able to tick off local parallels of almost every item highlighted below.

Mattisse's history on Wikipedia, and similar behaviour here

[edit]
Preamble.

By-and-large, here on Wikinews we try to ignore people's past on other projects; particularly where they've had issues on Wikipedia. In the long-run, and more global view, this has proved beneficial to the project. We've Diego, who is now an administrator fairly regularly contributing Original Research; we'd David Shankbone, who contributed an excellent series of interviews - including one with Shimon Perez.

But, some people bring their baggage with them; they expect that some "amateur dramatics", and wailing about persecution will get them special treatment. It should not, and does not. Mattisse is a case-in-point.

On Wikipedia.

Mattisse's user talk on Wikipedia was created on July 24, 2006. The next day she was challenged for tagging an article on a work of fiction as a hoax. On the 28th, she received her first block for socking. The corresponding checkuser investigation found five socks from Mattisse (I'll skip the name change that puts Mattisse's account origin in early May). I'll also avoid going through the two or three other RfCUs on Wikipedia regarding Mattisse and skip to the 33 confirmed socks; a cursory check shows that Always blue was created in March 2010, as were some of the other socks. Lastly, Loopy48 was created in December 2010.

That's over four years of socking. Some of those socks were used for multiple voting in VfDs on Wikipedia.

Now, there's also behaviour that people who've watched the dispute here on Wikinews will find strangely familiar: [14] [15] [16]

A "false", or "constructed" persecution.

This edit is particularly interesting, when one looks at the paranoid, persecution-complex, behaviour that Mattisse exhibits towards anyone on either wiki who is in a position of authority. That being because NLOleson is a CheckUser-confirmed sock of Mattisse, outed here, with a second socking block over the more serious charge of AfD vote-stacking.

Userpage/talk blanking.

Yet another trait Mattisse has brought with her from Wikipedia [17] [18] (IP blanking). It'll come as no surprise that, even when you fast-forward to February 2010, Mattisse developed a selective memory about removing comments from her user talk.

Taken to enWP ArbCom, spurned mentorship.

Mattisse has presented a somewhat distorted presentation of enWP's ArbCom findings against her. Conduct probation was indeed imposed, but resisted to the extent that further blocks were threatened.

The closing comment here from Geometry guy pretty much sums up the problems I see, and is fundamental in my assertion that, as a contributor on Wikinews, Mattisse is "unsalvagable"; quote: "Wikipedia does not revolve around you".

Then, March 2010, back to sockpuppetteering.

On Wikinews.

Sockpuppetting on Wikinews would have far, far more potential to fatally damage the project's credibility. Multiple voting is the least of our worries; consider the damage an individual could cause subverting the peer-review process.

Do I have evidence that Mattisse has engaged in such behaviour? No, at least not yet.

However, the above four-year wiki-soap-opera, shows every sign of trying to switch channels to Wikinews.

If I must cite parallel examples from here that match the above, I am confident I trivially could. Persecution complex? Check! Threats to leave? Check! Announcement of departure? Check! User and talk page blanking? Check!

To paraphrase Geometry guy, Mattisse, Wikinews does not revolve around you.

I would invite the community-at-large to provide input on this. It can't be tolerated here for four months, let alone four years. No interaction ban could prevent this happening with any other administrator or 'crat whatsoever who posts a remark that Mattisse misconstrues. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved party: Mattisse

[edit]
Request that the first DR be reopened
  • I believe the first DR should be reopened. Brian McNeil did not address any of the points. He also did not address my offers of resolution. He never commented at all. Indirectly I was given to believe that he agreed to the mutual terms to apologize to each other (although it was explained to me that he could not be expected to apologize) and to uphold the no contact provision.
  • Although my understanding was that all issues would be dropped and there would be a "no contact" provision between Brian McNeill and my self, it seems that I misunderstood. Since Brian McNeill did not actually speak up, I cannot be sure what his understanding of the resolution was.
  • I took on good faith that he would respect the no contact provision and cease his personal attacks and demeaning remarks, although reading it now, I see that he was not really agreeing to anything. I don't understand the above remark, such as "he also agreed to step out at his own talk page". What does that mean?
Brian McNeill continues the personal and degrading and unnecessary attacks directed at me.
  • Apparently Brian McNeill misunderstood my remarks in the article "Comments" or perhaps I worded them badly, or perhaps I am not welcome to enter comments. In any case, Brian McNeil felt the need to attack me, attack my competency as an editor and my ability to understand the material I was writing about, implied that my shoe size was larger than my IQ, and insinuated that I was presenting myself falsely, that I was a fraud, comparing me to EssyJay, the editor who presented himself fraudulently. He also denigrated my worth to the project and indicated I lacked the required skills to contribute to wikinews.
Examples from one Comments thread of Gay couple elected prom king and queen in Maine's Sanford High School
  • "You don't seem to understand the deeper aspects of any news item you're covering, you lack any real political awareness, and you're yet another fan of flock wallpaper adorned with fluffy bunnies."
  • "Oh, act your age - not your shoe size.
  • Your reading comprehension skills are pisspoor, you've a persecution complex, and you wilfully ignore good advice."
  • "The flip-flopping is worse than a Tory politician. What's an "adult" to do? I'm wondering "how can a forensic psychiatrist have poor reading comprehension skills?" – Relatives of EssJay, I'd certainly understand that failing."
Summary - the first DR was not resolved. My comments were not responded to by Brian McNeill and my complaints are the same.

Therefore, nothing has changed since the first DR. None of the issued raised were addressed by him. As far as I know, I have done nothing wrong except make a remark on a "Comments" page, which I thought was safe. Now I know it is not safe to make comments on a Comments page. Hopefully, I will not make that mistake again.

Other than mistakenly posting on the Comments page of the article, which I deeply regret, is there anything else I have done wrong since the last DR was closed? If so, I would appreciate someone pointing out my mistakes in a helpful way.

Thank you, Mattisse (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by dispute moderator: BarkingFish

[edit]

At this point, I feel I must recuse myself of further involvement in this issue. You emailed me a couple of hours ago, Mattisse - and made it quite clear you did not want to involve yourself in this again. If you are going to tell me one thing, and do another, I cannot remain impartial at this forum - I will instruct or request another administrator to deal with, and conclude proceedings here as they see fit. However, your request to open the first DR again, is denied at this time. The first one was dealt with, it's flared again, this is the place to put it. BarkingFish (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry. I just don't know how to get help. I don't know how to handle this. I am so sorry. I think it is futile anyway. I am not wanted here. I think the only horrible and unforgivable mistake I have made since the last DR was to post on the Comments page. Mattisse (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You were emailed? That would be a repeat of another tactic/behaviour from enWP. Such can be deduced from the more recent entries in Mattisse's block log there. The final block had to be tweaked to also prevent sending emails. I suggest contacting that blocking administrator - who is still quite active - and asking them for a,... "character reference". --Brian McNeil / talk 06:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I have emailed BarkingFish once. (I did not know it was a sin, as at other wikies it is openly allowed). However I have rarely emailed here. It is not something I like doing and I emailed much less than editors commonly do. He did not reply and he recused himself because of my email. I do not have the means to gather all the "off wiki" behavior that you have. I have no means so I emailed BarkingFish, asking for advice. I do not have a copy of it but BarkingFish does. Now I know never to do that again.
Do those who provide you with "off wiki" information recuse themselves also, or is this "off wiki" information you get is only appropriate for you and "doesn't count"? You are trying to make out that this is a sinister plan on my part, when I am only seeking help. I think that you are paranoid (as you have accused be of being) because I have not cooked up any elaborate plan. I merely wanted to write and edit articles and that is 99% of what I have done here. It is foolish to think that I would sockpuppet here, even if I wanted to, which I don't. With so few editors here, and with the numbers dwindling daily, a new account would be blatantly obvious. Why are you so fixated on that? I have been on the Commons since 2006 with no sockpuppets. And on Wikisource almost a year with no sockpuppets. You obviously have not examined my sockpuppeets. Most of them barely edited, some not at all, because they were demonstration account for friends and neighbors that I wanted to introduce wikipedia to, but did not want to reveal my account to them. But with only a handful of active editors at wikinews, no one could sockpupped with out being crystal clear that they were one. Since I have started here in February I have only seen vandal accounts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattisse (talk • contribs)
  • I read what BarkingFish wrote above; you contacted him, stated you were not going to respond to the reopened dispute, and that you were leaving. You did not; it is just repetition of the same Drama Queen behaviour you engaged in, for four years, on Wikipedia. The self-same claimed lack of understanding; self-same lashing out with torrents of percieved wrongs or injustices against yourself. In four years you learned zero about interacting in an online community; you are The September that Never Ended personified.
What you did in emailing BarkingFish could, to put it in terms you might understand, be construed as trying to influence the judge outwith the courtroom.
You brought the put-down on yourself by ignoring two warnings that you didn't understand what you were getting into through interfering in a Comments (Trollspace) discussion; you demanded censorship on a news website. The "I don't know what to doooooo!" is tired and old, you were told - dozens of times - on Wikipedia. You never learned, just kept on wearing your martyred victim complex.
I think Gry is wasting xyr time completely. You're not going to change; you still think the world revolves around you.
The sooner we take the same measures as Wikipedia, the better. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I emailed BarkingFish as I stated above. I was scared and had many confused feelings. I and was looking for direction and I expressed the conflicting my feelings running through my head. I was full of fear. I wanted some help and I trusted him to be objective. I do not have a copy of the email and I understand the WMF rules are that emails are private correspondence and cannot be disclosed without consent of both parties. I trust BarkingFish that he would not violate confidentiality. I did not realize that BarkingFish would in any way be acting as a judge. I thought it would work as before, that the community would give inpute (although I doubt they will as I have a target on my back now) and that someone would close it, as before, as resolved but with out any really attempt to resolve the matter.I am confident that you will interpret my attempts to reach out in the worse possible way and see it as part of a conspiracy, or meatpuppeting or some other devious action. You assume that I think like you. I don't. You think that way, not me. I just wanted some human contact. But I see it is hopeless and there is no one I can reach out to here, no help, no compassion.

I apologize to BarkingFish and promise that I will never email you again, nor contact you in any way. I am so sorry. Mattisse (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to clarify one thing - communication between myself and Wikimedia staff leads me to believe that there are NO rules from the WMF which forbid the publication of a private email between users, especially if it is relevant in any way to an on-wiki matter. The decision as to whether email can be published is with the local community where the matter is outstanding. You can reasonably expect privacy in your communication, but it cannot be guaranteed if the content is pertinent to whatever it relates to. BarkingFish (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved party: Mattisse since opening of previous DR is denied

[edit]

I will repeat my statement that Brain McNeill continues to attack me, demean me, and humiliate me. Brian McNeil did not address any of the points of my points in the first DR. He also did not address my offers of resolution. He never commented at all. Indirectly I was given to believe that he agreed to the mutual terms to apologize to each other (although it was explained to me that he could not be expected to apologize) and to uphold the no contact provision.

  • Although my understanding was that all issues would be dropped and there would be a "no contact" provision between Brian McNeill and my self, it seems that I misunderstood. Since Brian McNeill did not actually speak up, I cannot be sure what his understanding of the resolution was.
  • I took on good faith that he would respect the no contact provision and cease his personal attacks and demeaning remarks, although reading it now, I see that he was not really agreeing to anything. I don't understand the above remark, such as "he also agreed to step out at his own talk page". What does that mean?
Brian McNeill continues the personal and degrading and unnecessary attacks directed at me.
  • Apparently Brian McNeill misunderstood my remarks in the article "Comments" or perhaps I worded them badly, or perhaps I am not welcome to enter comments. In any case, Brian McNeil felt the need to attack me, attack my competency as an editor and my ability to understand the material I was writing about, implied that my shoe size was larger than my IQ, and insinuated that I was presenting myself falsely, that I was a fraud, comparing me to EssyJay, the editor who presented himself fraudulently. He also denigrated my worth to the project and indicated I lacked the required skills to contribute to wikinews.
Examples from one Comments thread of Gay couple elected prom king and queen in Maine's Sanford High School
  • "You don't seem to understand the deeper aspects of any news item you're covering, you lack any real political awareness, and you're yet another fan of flock wallpaper adorned with fluffy bunnies."
  • "Oh, act your age - not your shoe size.
  • Your reading comprehension skills are pisspoor, you've a persecution complex, and you wilfully ignore good advice."
  • "The flip-flopping is worse than a Tory politician. What's an "adult" to do? I'm wondering "how can a forensic psychiatrist have poor reading comprehension skills?" – Relatives of EssJay, I'd certainly understand that failing."
Summary - the first DR was not resolved. My comments were not responded to by Brian McNeill and my complaints are the same.

Therefore, nothing has changed since the first DR. None of the issued raised were addressed by him. As far as I know, I have done nothing wrong except make a remark on a "Comments" page, which I thought was safe. Now I know it is not safe to make comments on a Comments page. Hopefully, I will not make that mistake again.

Other than mistakenly posting on the Comments page of the article, which I deeply regret, is there anything else I have done wrong since the last DR was closed? If so, I would appreciate someone pointing out my mistakes in a helpful way.

Brief response

[edit]
  1. This is the same dispute resolution reopened. I have stated that several times, it states it at the very top of the page.
  2. I did not engage when this was previously open as it was impossible to do so; Mattisse took ownership of the page to write a thesis on "The Big Bad Bossman". Virtually nobody could edit here without having a conflict.
  3. Mattisse is doing the self-same here as-on Wikipedia; that went on for four years, no lessons learned.
  4. Wilfully misrepresents "conspiracy theory" item I raised:
    • The post on Mattisse's enWP talk laying out users allegedly conspiring against Mattisse was posted by a CU-identified sock of Mattisse.
  5. I have requested input from Wikipedians who dealt with Mattisse; I have absolutely no doubt they will confirm this is the self-same drama-making as resulted in a permanent ban.

Now, I'll wait and see how many thousand words it takes Mattisse to fail to rebut these points. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further statement addressing Brian McNeill's further accusations

[edit]
I don't think what happened on wikipedia is relevant here. Nevertheless I will respond.
Response to On Wikipedia.
  • First I would like to stress that I was a valued member of the community: See my user page and helped many people get their articles through FAC, helped write and edit those articles, as well as GAN. I am really not the dumbbell Brian McNeill presents me as. I was considered a top tier writer and editor on wikipedia.

I joined Wikipedia on May 6, 2006. Neither my family nor I had ever edited or posted on the internet before and we had a steep learning curve. Starting in July 2006, I was pursued relentlessly by three sockpuppets until January of 2019:

They reverted, vandalized, redirected my articles and edits as many as 39 times a day. They continued until Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood in January 2007 in which it was discovered they were sockpuppets. All were permanently banned from Wikipedia. But during that time they filed AN/I reports almost daily on me (I did not know this for a while and did not understand). I tried to get a mentor, to get help in any way I could find, but it was a brutal experience

  • I will reiterate that Loopy48 is not a sockpuppet of mine. I requested a check user but it was refused. Loop48 is not me. I have admitted to all the sockpuppets that were either me or came from my computer.
  • You mention Always Blue. Always Blue made six noncontroversial edits on March 7, 2010, one to a sandbox. That is it. I think that if you look at most of the other edits of the sockpuppets, you will find equally trivial edits. Remember, on wikipedia it is not illegal to have alternate accounts if they are not abusive. Recently admin Bishonen was asked to disclose her many sockpuppet accounts. She refused. So I ask you to understand that sockpuppets are frequent on wikipedia and that is the culture there. I did not understand that if my daughter or my neighbor wanted to try out Wikipedia and I helped them log on with what I considered a temporary account as I did not want them to use mine, that all those would be considered sockpuppet accounts. Geogre was found by Arbcom to be using a good hand/bad hand account against me, among others. He was allowed by arbcom to keep the two accounts but to label his bad hand account as an alternate account of his. He refused and has not edited wikipedia since. I give you these examples in order to explain the culture of sockpuppets is different there.
  • I think that providing three links from the summer of 2006 [19] [20] [21], which was five years ago is not representative of anything. The first is an apology and I don't see anything wrong with it. The next two are to a close friend at the time who did not follow through and help me with the Starwood business when I had helped him. Feeling get expressed on wikipedia and there is nothing wrong with that. Remember, I was being harassed by sockpuppets relentlessly at the time and I was stressed out. I was discouraged. I have seen many, many people express discouragement, many retire and come back (or not come back). Malleus is famous for his threats to leave, probably at least 20 times that I have witnessed. It is a way of dealing with stress that human beings use. I don't think there are any rules against expressing some honest emotion. I did not harm anyone. I still have friends at wikipedia who like and respect me. It does seem to be that at wikinews many, many editors have left and not come back. Perhaps if there was a more permissive atmosphere at wikinews where genuine emotion was allowed but nasty bards, self-serving "witicisms" at the expensive of others were not allowed instead of visa versa the way it is now, that more than 243 editors a month would edit.
A "false", or "constructed" persecution.

[22] Much of the info in that edit was truth, some I don't quite understand, as some of the editors mentioned were helpful and on my side. The information in the edit had no impact as I recall. Confused speculation. But as explained above, these three editors stalked and harassed me, vandalized etc. for over six months without respite. I really did not understand what was going on.

The issue of the Starwood articles was not settled until the Starwood arbitration. As for this outing, you are still back in 2006, and even then my behavior was not considered serious enough to warrant anything more than a short block.

Userpage/talk blanking.

I must admit I don't understand this accusation of page blanking People blank their pages all the time. I have not done it very often, but there is no rule against it and I have never seen anyone punished or reprimanded for it. Rather the opposite. Usually it brings sympathy. Truthseeker88 recently blanked her page, and that prompted other editors to consoled her. I have seen it done at wikinews and no one seems to mind. And more confusing I am being accused of an IP blanking![23] An IP blanks my page and a vandal fighter restores it. How is that a fault of mine? I notice the page contains a post by now banned user Hanuman Das and he mentions his sockpuppet 999 (we are still in September 2006) and I didn't know he was a sockpuppet but I did know he was vandalizing my edits. Please understand how confusing it was for me. I actually tried to make friends with Hanuman Das!

Taken to enWP ArbCom, spurned mentorship.
  • Brian McNeill is way way oversimplifying the situation which he clearly does not understand. Has he read arbcom's directions. Or is he merely trolling through my edits and grabbing some of by 100,000 edits to make me look bad at wikinews? I'm seeking to do well here. I should not be judged on behavior of the past on another site.
  • Re: [24] etc., I don't think you understand what the diff shows, or realize how hard it is to try to follow arbcoms directions when a mentorship such as I was trying to construct had never been accomplished before, I had vested admins locking down pages, blocking me etc. and my mentors most of the time were not available. Geometry guy rarely edits, for example. Also, if you look at that diff, you will see that I am expressing confusion, Geometry guy is expressing confusion. He does not say I am "unsavagable". Please read [25], the link Brian McNeill provides. In actuality the link shows Geometry guy "collapsing" some comments with the title This was not a seriously problematic discussion, but all editors involved, including myself, may obtain a more objective perspective by stepping back for a while. That is not saying that I am "unsavagable" as Brian McNeill claims. We were all confused as arbcom gave no clear direction. But the plan was a mess. The one thing that arbcom said was that I should have control over the plan, and I was not allowed to have control. We were all frustrated. Yes, in March 2010 I was blocked indefinitely for running sockpuppets while my main account was blocked by an admin. That is well known. I was not banned and I was given an offer by Risker a few months ago to reapply to Wikipedia in six months.
Re sockpuppeting

I am not and will not use sockpuppets again.

In any case, it is foolish to think I would have a sockpuppet or vote stack here. With so few editors, if a sockpupped turned up at a vote, that account would be blindingly obvious. To have any kind of sockpuppet here would be impossible. There are hardly any editors here. Any new editor sticks out like a sore thumb. And as far as vote stacking, I have not been accused of that, nor have I done it since the incident in the summer of 2006. Remember, this is 2011, five years later. I urge you again to look at my user page before I was blocked.

On Wikinews.
  • Brian McNeill says: "Sockpuppetting on Wikinews would have far, far more potential to fatally damage the project's credibility. Multiple voting is the least of our worries; consider the damage an individual could cause subverting the peer-review process."
Response
  • There is absolutely no evidence that I have sockpuppeted on wikinew, nor that I ever will. You have no evidence as such. Your request for a checkuser was turned down because you have not a scrape of evidence. I think a sockpuppet could be identified by eyeball. Usually there are only a handful ef editors vote on anything. I am not sure what you mean by "subvering the peer-review process". How would I do that? Please provide evidence that I have even remotely come close to doing that. I don't see that it is even possible.
  • Brian McNeill says: "Do I have evidence that Mattisse has engaged in such behaviour? No, at least not yet."
Response
  • Then get some. I have been here only a few months. Ir would take less than an hour to go through my diffs. Besides, give the very few active editors here, who of those very few do you suspect is my sockpuppet? Or do you suspect everyone?
  • Brian McNeill says: "However, the above four-year wiki-soap-opera, shows every sign of trying to switch channels to Wikinews."
Respnse
  • Why would I want to do that? I am trying to rehabilitate myself. What would my purpose? I used sockpuppets on wikipedia for a variety of reasons; I let other editors use my computer, I did not know that allowing others to set up their own accounts was wrong. Most of the sockpuppet made few if any edits. In 2006 there was som shenanigans involving my family, but now since. I encouraged a neighbor to edit wikipedia on my computer, and his edits were charged against me, even though he edited completely different topics and made no offensive edits. I used sockpuppets to evade the sockpuppets stalking me. These sockpuppets made responsible edits, never damaged but only improved articles and were praised by other editors. My goal was never to undermine wikipedia. That is the way your mind works, not mind.
  • Again, I remind you that I have edited on other sites with no problems. I suppose when a wiki is generally an unhappy place, and editors are fleeing, Brian McNeiall may seek to attribute this problem to other editors' behavior. I was so happy when I joined wikineews, I loved writing and editing and fixing up articles.
  • Brian McNeill says: "If I must cite parallel examples from here that match the above, I am confident I trivially could."
Brian McNeill says: "Persecution complex? Check!"
Response

A "persecution complex" (don't know where you get your definition) is different from being overly sensitive, which I admit and I am trying to work on. But you have deliberately provoked me with outrages personal attacks, silly, hurtful barbs, accusing me of being an EssJay etc. And tried to get a check user when it was stupendeously obvious that I had no sockpuppets. Perhaps 'you Brien McNeill have a persecution complex as you ares pathologically suspicious of a good faith editor who was contributing an average of one published article a day. Why would you not be happy with that? Was I sabotaging those articles? What about all the university student articles that I rewrote and made publishable? Is that an evil sign too. Do you, Brian McNeill have persecution complex that you see evil doing under every rock and refuse to consider that an editor, though making mistaks, is acting in good faith and is not out to get you or wikinews.

Frankly I consider you analysis of my motives bizarre. If I wanted to do a site in, would I choose a site with hardly any editors and not taken seriously by anyone except the few who edit here? Really?

  • Brian says: "Threats to leave?" Check!
Response

Really? That is a sign of a sockpuppet or other evil intentions? Or is it a sign of an editor who has been repeatedly personally attacked and accorded no good faith. You have made it clear you want me to leave. That is reason enough to want to leave. Is that a diagnostic sign of anything except an unhappy editor? Did none of the hundreds of editors that have left wikinew announce they were leaving? Is there a rule that leaving should not be announce? Because I stuck around being hoing hopeful that I would be allowed to write and edit articles in peace, that is a failing of mine and a sign of evil intent?

  • Brian says: "Announcement of departure? Check! User and talk page blanking? Check!"
Response

Really that is the sign of a sockpuppet or a person of evil intent? In the few months I have been here I have seen several such announcements. Is there a rule against that? Would you prefer that editors just leave without commenting? If so, why not make that a rule? Newbies like me are not aware of all you hidden rules, and you help bages are woefully inadequate.

  • Brian says, "To paraphrase Geometry guy, Mattisse, Wikinews does not revolve around you."
Response

Yes, Geometry guy and I had many interactions regarding my "sensitiveness". However, he never disagreed with my judgment over an article and admired my writing and editing skills. He always agreed that I improved articles and did not harm them. We had honest interactions, something that is forbidden here it appears. I think he would still help me out if I asked. We have had hours of chat conversations and I still consider him a friend. The mentoring issue taxed everyone.

  • Brian says: :I would invite the community-at-large to provide input on this. It can't be tolerated here for four months, let alone four years. No interaction ban could prevent this happening with any other administrator or 'crat whatsoever who posts a remark that Mattisse misconstrues. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response

I agree. I would like the community to give me feedback on my failings, hopefully in a compassionate way that acknowledges that I bring some value to the project.

It would have helped if you had responded to the first DR, if you had clarified your remarks there, which were also a series of personal and hurful attacks that did not convey useful information to me what I was doing wrong. Specific, concrete explanations are way more helpful that silly, personal jokes with barbs attached. For example, several editors have asked me what does "Dorothy, you're not in Oz anymore means." Do you want to communicate or do you want to make silly, injoke remarks? If you communicated clearly, then I would understand want you mean here. Are you really saying the following remarks on an Article comment page are informative in a useful way, or are you trying to humiliate me to drive me away?:

  • "You don't seem to understand the deeper aspects of any news item you're covering, you lack any real political awareness, and you're yet another fan of flock wallpaper adorned with fluffy bunnies."
  • "Oh, act your age - not your shoe size."
  • "Your reading comprehension skills are pisspoor, you've a persecution complex, and you wilfully ignore good advice."
  • "The flip-flopping is worse than a Tory politician. What's an "adult" to do? I'm wondering "how can a forensic psychiatrist have poor reading comprehension skills?" – Relatives of EssJay, I'd certainly understand that failing."

Are these not childish, vengeful remarks meant to hurt rather than toe educate? And mad on a public page that readers were posting on too. Is it really OK to show the foolish, unprofessional side of wikinews to the public in such a blattant way

So because of sins and frustrations at Wikipedia I am to be punished here? Punished because Brian McNeill insults and degrades me. I will say again that I wrote and average of one published article a day and have published over 60 articles with no problems. I have fixed up and salvaged numerous others. No one has complained that my work is sub par except Brian McNeill.

I don't see the relevance of what happened on wikipedia here. Please provide some diffs of bad behavior on my part that have occurred since the last DR was closed as resolved. I don't think one incident in an article's Comments page is reason enough to drudge up the past and embroil me in nastiness, to discredit me, to make a fool of me. I have edited on the Commons since 2006 with no problems and I have edited profusely at Wikisource since July 2010 with no problems. It is ironic that wikinews, which claims it is not like wp is very much like wp. I have not had problems editing any other sites except wikinews and wikipedia.

Again, I would like Brian McNeill to address the issues in the first DR. If he had communicated clearly, concisely and competently in that DR, this incident might never have happened. The issues are exactly the same. I keep my part of the bargain, as I understood it. He did not keep his. He did not need to trast me in public on an article Comments page in full public view.

Thank you for hearing me out.

Regards, Mattisse (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Gryllida

[edit]

Mattisse, I see you have troubles understanding how some things work. Please try to

  1. Avoid personal attacks. Some people can misunderstand you, but you shouldn't respond to them unless your response makes further work on the wiki better - even if their comments are not collaborative. (Imagine everyone did otherwise, it would go nowhere far!)
  2. Raise any further concerns like how comments namespace works and what certain contributors' lines mean at Water Cooler.

Your behavior here is similar to what happened at Wikipedia and as such some of us loose patience explaining things. A number of people have Water Cooler on watchlist and should be happier to assist you. --Gryllida 00:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out what I am doing wrong. I have quoted Brian McNeill's remarks and I have described how those remarks have affected me. Is that wrong. Look what he is doing! He is dragging up 2006 edits on wikipedia. Why? How could anyone be a sockpuppet here with hardly any editors? And does one comment deserve the DR he filed? Especially since he never responded to the one I filed. At least I give him the respect of responding. Post Brian McNeill's DR at the Water Cooler? I don't understand what you mean. I did not file the DR, he did. What do you recommend I ask at the Water Cooler? Mattisse (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just state these comments - any sort of questions you have trouble understanding - at Water Cooler instead of the place his comments are at. It's easier for him to avoid just that one Water Cooler page, which is a friendlier place. --Gryllida 01:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something you did wrong, but rather an advice I'm giving to have it easier for you to reach understanding with this wiki. Gryllida 01:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that I should remove my response to the DR and post it at the Water cooler? I did not response in his comments in his comments section. I responded under a different heading. Is that wrong? Should I remove my response to the DR. After all, he never responded to mine. Perhaps it is wrong here to respond to a DR. Is that it. Should I remove my response? What have I done wrong except be foolish enough to think that I could post a comment in the Comments section of an article? I really don't understand. Please explain further. What have I done wrong? I posted at the Water cooler as you suggested. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That should be fine, just clarify what you actually want to know or find confusing there, and someone would respond. --Gryllida 01:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I want to know why Brian McNeill is bringing up my behavior on wikipedia, concentrating on the sockpuppeting and edits made in 2006 after personally attacking me and demeaning me on the "Comments" section of an article, attacking me with humiliating barbs and demeaning language. I did not do that in the Comments. So I guess I will ask that upon your recommendation. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gryllida 02:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I now see clearly that this DR is useless. That the process is rigged. I have been told by many "off wiki" communications that the only solution is to give up. Thus I will do so. If there is anything that comes of this, please post to the link on my user page. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this dispute resolution request is not very needed now as we're having a conversation at the Water Cooler. If it fails to clarify things, we may have to resort to escalating it here again. --Gryllida 03:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you still think the Water cooler is a good idea? I notice all my questions and concerns have been removed. It is as if I never posted there. What do you suggest now? Mattisse (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved them to User:Gryllida/questions/Mattisse - just respond there to the questions, one by one. Thanks. --Gryllida 08:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From BRS

[edit]

So far as I can see - though there is far too much length for even me to attempt to read through - nothing has changed since the last DR to warrant this except for a Comments: namespace argument. As such, this would seem to be a Comments: discussion dragged out into more tightly regulated namespaces, and I question what good can come of that. I accept that one can say things there that cannot be said elsewhere; Comments: is a theatre of war, unlike the rest of WN.

I'm going to aim this directly at Mattisse: My impression of you is that you're an intelligent lady, but a hyper-sensitive one. You seem to perceive threats and slights that aren't there; in over-reacting to them, you only end up justifying actual accusations. It is disruptive. However, I do not believe you are out specifically to cause trouble; you merely end up doing so.

There's very much a Jekyll and Hyde here: Once upset, you say/do pretty stupid things. When not upset, you're altogether another person; thoughtful, with a decent grasp of language. It's hard to figure how to deal with that in a way that doesn't involve you depearting the site, which I stubbornly continue to oppose. You're perfectly useful.

My proposal: Both sides drop the DR, which is hopeless. I'm willing to step in as a mentor to Mattisse; whilst I cannot force these terms, I'd recommend them:
Mattisse'd stick to mainspace, Talk: pages, her own userspace/user talk and my user talk. She can venture into other spaces, but she should clear with me first. I'm around at some point pretty much every day, so in practice this hopefully wouldn't be nearly as restrictive as it sounds. If she's upset about something, instead of raising it directly with the user she can come to me; if need be, by email in the first instance. This means I can either explain what she's misinterpreted, or step in on her behalf if need be. I suspect I'll be doing mainly - maybe entirely - the former, but fairness dictates that I step in if she is right.

I'd suggest very strongly if she has a problem she quietly wait for me, as she's shown editing while she's upset generally doesn't end well.

The aim of this is to try to catch Mattisse before she goes off on a semi-coherent rant, and to give an alternative outlet that doesn't involve grinding up the wiki. I actually rather suspect just having such recourse readily available will have some calming effect. My hope is to prevent future disputes becoming so lengthy and heated; or even to prevent them coming altogether where they've begun from a misundestanding. I'm someone Brian trusts also; I'd be expecting him to lay off and see if this works. If it does, he need never raise the issue again.

Such would be subject to community approval, of course. This has had an effect upon such a wide part of the userbase that I'd want consensus for any remedy. However, I can think of no real alternative. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request from Cirt

[edit]
  1. Can both parties please comment in a very short brief statement, no more than four sentences, of what they feel the substance of the continuing ongoing problem is?
  2. Can both parties please also make a statement, saying how they feel this problem can be solved or addressed, what remedies can be taken - in no more than four sentences?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Brian McNeil

[edit]
  1. Mattisse has decided I hold a personal grudge and am engaged in some form of vendetta against xyrself. Xe, for reasons unknown, misinterprets remarks, and takes any and all criticism extremely personally. This is a continuation of a four-year long pattern from Wikipedia, with no evidence of learning from such. This, taken as a whole, is extremely disruptive to the entire community.
  2. I do not feel this problem can be solved; it failed to be resolved over a four-year period on Wikipedia where there is a much larger contributor base to absorb disruptive tantrums and personality clashes.

Hopefully 1. above doesn't exceed your requirements. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Mattisse

[edit]

Thank you very much Cirt. Since we had some contact on wp, perhaps you are aware of some of my competencies as well as my failures. All I want is a fresh start here where I feel I have positively contributed. Articles I have published since March 2011 number over 60:[26] I feel the problem can be solved and I can continue to be productive if Brian McNeil will agree to the following:

  • 1. follow Wikinews:E, specifically: Don't label or personally attack me or my edits. Instead, explain to me civilly my mistakes in an informative manner. Recent examples:
  • "you're yet another fan of flock wallpaper adorned with fluffy bunnies";
  • "Your reading comprehension skills are pisspoor";
  • "how can a forensic psychiatrist have poor reading comprehension skills? -Relatives of EssJay, I'd certainly understand that failing.";
  • I was asked to lay off you by another Wikinews contributor who you, apparently, told you were a forensic psychiatrist. I trust them to not have been lying; you, less-so by the second.
  • "act your age - not your shoe size";
  • labeling me as homophobic.
  • 2. respect the "no contact" proposal in the last DR which included no talk page references to each other;
  • 3. stop repeated unsupported accusations based on "off wiki" communications from unnamed accusers; instead, produce transparent evidence on wiki;
eg. that I am a tool of a meatpuppet involved in a conspiracy and a "whispering campaign" against him and wikinews;
  • 4. produce evidence from this site not my past on another site; if he thinks I am sockpuppeting here, he file a proper Checkuser request with diffs.

Mattisse (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Cirt

[edit]
  • After having read the responses, it seems that though there is some merit to the comments by Brian McNeil, in addition from Mattisse points (2) and the latter half of point (4) from his response also seem rational.
  • Query: Would both parties agree to a mutual interaction ban, to not interact with each other or comment in reply or response to each other on any pages on this project, broadly construed?

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I would! Thank you, Cirt. That was the proposal in the first DR and I agreed to it there and I agree to it here. I believe this would solve the situation for me! I would also appreciate any other insights you could give me about my behavior. I know I am over sensitive, and I will work on that. But also I don't know the rules of the site. Like I didn't know there was a trolling namespace! Mattisse (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mattisse, I would suggest that even if in the future you feel the other party to this dispute is not respecting the action of refraining from mutual interaction — that it would be in your best interests to not engage, and rather, ignore, such issues directly. Rather, you could approach a third-party editor to discuss it with them. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As demonstrated above, Mattisse cannot follow simple instructions; instead of four short sentence responses, a set of demands and grievances is laid out. I apologised for the length of one response, and I made no demands for retribution. The above, although 'decorated' with the odd compliment to yourself, is not what was requested.
I can attempt to avoid interacting with Mattisse, but would not expect such to include avoiding reviewing xyr work.
Of more concern to me is Risker's analysis from enWP. Grudges were held over a four-year period, and very, very personal attacks made via email. I'm highlighting this now because, as stated earlier, Wikinews could not stand four months of the same disruption enWP took for four years – regardless of the volume of synthesis output.
I would have preferred not to post such a lengthy response here, and will try to avoid/ignore Mattisse; but, some "claims to clueless newbiehood" needed debunked. The biggest problem is that this is a small, but fast-paced, wiki; how long Mattisse can avoid myself, and vice-versa, remains to be seen; xe keeping out of the comments namespace completely is just a small part of it. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cirt in response to responses from the two parties

[edit]
  1. Mattisse has agreed to a mutual interaction restriction.
  2. Brian McNeil has agreed to avoid where possible interactions with Mattisse, save for the possibility of reviewing articles.
  3. Mattisse has agreed to refrain from commenting in reply to Brian McNeil.
  4. Therefore as applied to reviews, Mattisse can respond in this one exception instance — but only to the substance of the review itself, and not directly to Brian McNeil — very narrowly interpreted, only to address the review itself, and then wait for a 2nd review from a different editor.
  5. Under these mutually agreed restrictions, this appears to be resolved for the time being.
  6. It is assumed from above statements that both parties agreed to a good faith effort to adhere to the mutual interaction restriction, and that formal imposition of same from the community, or other dispute resolution processes, is not necessary at this time.
  7. However, if the parties cannot adhere as such, and disruption occurs, again, then it will natually become more likely that some form of interjection from the community or other dispute resolution process will be needed — in order to formally impose the restriction on the users involved.
  8. This is not a ruling or judgment by myself, merely a summary statement of the impact of the good faith comments by the parties above in their agreements to a mutual editing restriction.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Thank you for stating you will abide by it. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Dispute_resolution/Brian_McNeil_and_Mattisse&oldid=4635472"