User talk:SilkTork/AMA Archive/Mattisse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Thanks!
2 Mattisse
3 after today
4 Re:Matisse advocacy background

[edit] Thanks!

What is happening now is way over my head anyway, and the outcome is out of my control as I cannot follow what is happening. What I need is someone who will help me understand how to function on Wikipedia in general without getting into trouble and give me constructive critisism about my behavior. It would be wonderful if you would do that. I'm not very technical nor even used the internet until recently. Sincerely, Mattisse 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mattisse

Hi Rosencomet! Mattisse has requested assistance. She has mentioned you in her request. I am starting to look into the issue. Any background information you could give me would be very welcome. Cheers. SilkTork 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Silktork. I don't envy you the position you are embarking on. I can't really add much to the TONS of data available from the talk pages of the involved parties and the 2 mediations and one arbitration opened on me and the work I've done, most of which IMO has been triggered by the irresponsible actions of User:Mattisse. I can try to give you a brief my-eye view of it. I do caution you not to take at face value any attempt by her to cast herself as a victim, or as a wide-eyed novice to either Wikipedia or the internet. Her user page identifies her as both a psychologist and a doctor of philosophy, and the number of edits she has made since May 2006 is frankly astounding, as is the number of sockpuppets she has operated under. She seems to have begun using multiple names from the very beginning, like User:KarenAnn, and used about half a dozen in the first week of her editing Starwood Festival, the primary page in the mediations & arbitration I've been enmired in. There is a list available of 18, and I suspect there are more.

She began targetting my work within a week of my first edit. She bombarded the pages with tags under different user names, accused the author of promotion, false data, and all sorts of other things. When a couple editors helped me supply many citations (which, at the time, were only requested to verify the facts), she began accusations that the links added were there to linkspam and google-bomb (terms I had never even heard of). She rallied others to help and delete the very citations she had demanded, stalked the wiki articles linked to Starwood, also challenged other facts in the text, and triggered a revert war. Once she got others to join in, she mostly stopped directly editing but kept egging them on and keeping the flames going. The objections kept changing; unsourced, unverified, non-notable, spam, ad-like, self-promoting - new ones as quick as I could satisfy the old.

Not only did she create the impression that a lot of editors were in agreement with her that my work was a problem, she actually added and changed names, CREATED fake articles and false claims on articles, linked them with the Starwood article, then posted messages on the talk pages of other editors saying "the Starwood folks are at it again". She regularly refered to any article I touched as "having been taken over" by me, and called ANY interference with this outrageous behavior "harassment". She argued on my talk page and those of anyone supporting me, using different names, and visited the articles of those editors with similar behavior. I will say, though, she has not accused me personally of harassment.

Her behavior has been very oddly schizophrenic. I'm not using that term as a psychologist would, but in the colloquial way. She has contradicted herself many times. She has, at times, used sockpuppets and tried to blame them on her grandchildren or people visiting at her house. She has even asked editors to help her determine which sockpuppets were actually hers. She seems to have argued on BOTH sides of deletion proposals, even ones that SHE started, all under different names. She has angered several editors to the point of rather harsh reactions, and in one or two cases (that I know of) contributed to their leaving Wikipedia completely IMO. I also think that in the case of Timmy12, she bears a great deal of responsibility; he never would have been accused of sockpuppetry if not for the combination of the many socks Mattisse used and the fact that Timmy12 was encouraged to engage in the same behavior as she.

At this point, there are 3 editors who seem absolutely determined to drive me out of Wikipedia and take down all the work I have done, and I doubt this would be the case if not for her behavior. I know I did not do everything correctly in the first couple of months I was editing, but there were a few editors who were helping me improve my work so it would be in compliance with Wiki policies, and I have worked hard over the past two months deleting much of what was objected to and citing, verifying, and adding 3rd-party sources. But partly due to Mattisse's influence IMO, these editors are so set against me that nothing will satisfy them anymore.

The request that you are responding to is, in part, another example of her desire to keep every real or imagined offense against her alive and hotly active, and drag as many people as possible into her personal drama, while denying her own part in any of the unpleasantness. She continues to rally people in her defense against her supposed victimizers on one hand, while declaring that she doesn't know what she did wrong and claiming she has nothing against the people she keeps making these accusations against on the other. I have said, and I'll say it again at risk of accusations of not AGF, that I truly don't know why she does what she does, or even if SHE knows. But she has helped cause and helps perpetuate chaos for many editors, IMO.

I hope this helps give you a sense of things, and I hope you review the material before you commit yourself to anything. I hope you ask the previous advocates why they thought there was nothing more to be done, and look closely at the dates of the issues involved to see what might be a non-cunstructive ressurection of dead issues. My motivation has always been to write and improve articles, and I've been able to do little of that for quite a while because of the mess she, in part, has plunged me into. I'm sorry if this sounds overly strident or negative, but I feel like I've been dragged over broken glass, and I see no end in sight as long as I stay an editor. Rosencomet 22:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More comments by AdelaMae

I don't really consider myself involved in the Starwood/WinterStar/ACE embroglio, though I've read some of the discussion and made a few comments. I know I haven't seen everything, but I haven't seen behavior from Mattisse that would justify the negative reactions I've seen from Rosencomet, 999, Ekajati, and Hanuman Das, who seem to edit as one when it comes to this issue. I haven't noticed any gross incivility or serious/recent violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines by Mattisse. Please take a moment to compare her first comment to me with the response by 999. Also note that Mattisse received overwhelming support in the outside view of a recent user conduct RfC. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on this comment

Actually, Hanuman Das, 999 and Ekajati have critiqued my work, especially early on, and at times advised me to either abandon the attempts to save a particular article that they thought could not be made to pass notability muster, or to revert something I did or said that was questionable, and helped delete many external links once the mediation seemed to conclude that they were neither necessary nor appropriate in the numbers that had accumulated due to Mattisse's citation tags. Their guidance has helped me be a better editor, IMO. On the other hand, Pigman, Kathryn and Weniwediwiki can certainly be said to "edit as one" on this issue, and Pigman & Kathryn are co-founders of the tradition discussed in the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism article which they both heavily edit and defend. On the other hand, as to AdeleMae's comment about Mattisse apparently not being guilty of gross inciviluty and/or serious recent violations, I would agree with that. Rosencomet 18:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mattisse Redux

Tis a long harrowing tale. If you wish to ask me questions, I will tell you my perceptions. However I would rather give you a few background links not on Mattisse's AMA request and let you draw your own conclusions.

And of course most recently the Starwood arbitration:

Caveat: Since I am currently involved in the Starwood arbitration, I doubt I can give you a totally unbiased view but I would try my best. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 04:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mattisse

My opinion is that the woman should have been blocked long ago. EOM. 999 (Talk) 06:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matisse advocacy background

Hi, I'm one of your fellow AMA and I'm also acting as advocate for User:Jefferson Anderson in the same case as you. Actually, I was who resurrected Matisse's request. The background is simple: there is a discussion on whether is legimite or not to use your own website as source. And, also, there are multiple satellite sockpuppetry accusations and your advocee is accused to be a puppetmaster. Nothing else, but enough serious, at least to me. I would have taken the case, but obviously I can't. There have been Checkuser tests, etc. and an arb has recused in the middle of the whole thing. The case is a mess, go carefully, be subtle and think twice before doing anything; now the thing is somehow calmed down, but has the enough tension to explode again, hurting your advocee, who is objectively so confused that she doesn't even know how to defend herself. I really would appreciate if you help resolving this issue and to help her. Greetings! --Neigel von Teighen 10:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to argue but just to clarify: the mediation seems to have concluded that citing the website of the organization that runs the event (which is not "my website") IS a legitimate way of verifying the simple fact that an appearance of a subject did occur on a date in question, and other simple factual information, but that 1. individual multiple links to that site by each name & fact were both unnecessary and inappropriate, as the simple inclusion of the website in the reference section should cover it, and 2. to determine if an appearance is notable in the article of a subject, more may be necessary, for instance a third-party citation, a mention on the website of the subject, and/or some notable supporting fact such as the existence of a commercially-produced recording made of the subject's appearance (at least Salix Alba agrees this third factor supports notability, and no one has contradicted this). Many such citations have been supplied, and most external links have been eliminated. There also seems to be a generally-accepted opinion that for at least SOME of the artists, especially (but not necessarily limited to these) Pagan/spiritual/New Age speakers who have not spoken at so many venues that mention of one seems to violate "undue weight". The mediations have made it QUITE CLEAR that such issues should be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

It seems to me that the discussion has moved to how many internal links between the event's article and those of the artists appearing at it may be TOO many, and whether the lists of past speakers and entertainers are "unencyclopedic". There are major differences of opinion on this, compounded by the fact that there are no guidelines in Wikipedia for how many items should be in such lists and under what circumstances, and individuals on BOTH sides have been accused of expressing opinions colored by COI and POV issues.

The rest, in my opinion, consists of a constant drumbeat on the part of some to keep past accusations of harassment and other forms of wrong-doing alive to curry favor for one side or another's position, or perhaps to try to get one or more editor blocked so the other side can have a free hand to do their will. I would certainly like to see that sort of thing end. I would be happy to even lay the issue of Mattisse's sockpuppets to rest, if the behavior it caused in response was also laid to rest. But there are some who want to call what Matisse did "old news", but keep the response a live issue. Rosencomet 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. SilkTork 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] after today

I am going to abandon my account and register under a new name. I cannot take this any more. I am telling you this openly so there is no deceit. CompletelyHeadless 02:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For some reason my comments to your page are not registering. I have made several as you are making things worse. You are spreading my name around when I have asked you several times to stop. You are asking people's opinions who have recorded pages of what they think of me already. Please stop and at least consult relevant people instead. Please stop harming me. Please!

Comments noted. I will stop until advised otherwise. SilkTork 08:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I retract my above request. I made it because of the reasons given in my several emails to you. Please continue. CompletelyHeadless 13:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What is your time schedule, as I can't seem to get into communication with you and feel we are working at cross purposes? Is there a way we can have a more clarifying conversation? I am in the dark about what you are doing. I want you to continue, but I would like to know what you are doing as you go along and not days later. The Arbitration devolved into chaos yesterday and may simply explode. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I will get in touch. SilkTork 15:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

When? I made a series of entries that maybe I should not have, but since you do not answer email and I cannot be candid here, how can I get advice? Things are happening very fast. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Matisse advocacy background

I don't have any opinion on her behaivor, mainly because I'm rather more concerned on what's happening with my advocee. I, honestly, don't pay too much atention in her situation; that is supposed to be your job, ;). Anyway, I repeat you I, in your case, would be more close to her and more silently... But, well, is your case, not mine. Good luck! --Neigel von Teighen 09:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Err... you're not listed as an active AMA member... You should do it here, so anyone can see you're part of us! --Neigel von Teighen 09:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was listed. It showed my real name. I have now adjusted it so that my username is displayed. Thanks for the headsup. SilkTork 15:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this advice, given to you by the above person who also advised you of this previously. He said you could do me great harm by this method of approach (I am paraphrasing). This is what I feel as well. Please continue but please consider the advice of this person and my own views. My feeling is that he and I may have a better feel for what is happening here. I wish you were more responsive by email as I do not like posting but apparently I must. CompletelyHeadless 14:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/l/User_talk%7ESilkTork_AMA_Archive_Mattisse_cbde.html"