Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Note: Please see my comments at the top of the Workshop page before posting evidence in this case. I thank all participants in the case for your cooperation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional note This page concerns the user, Mattisse, not the article about the famous painter.

Evidence presented by Ottava Rima
I do not have diffs for the below because these are very long range and deal with stuff already mentioned. However, I felt that putting this in evidence would be good formality.

Mattisse at FAC and FAR
Mattisse has reviewed FAC and FAR for a very long time. They have supported and opposed, and have shown willingness to oppose FAC and FAR regulars, which means that they do not support people because they have "been around for a while". While I have had some tense interaction with them (a little here) I have not seen any that have been incivil or malice based. Instead, they show a genuine concern for FAC and FAR as a whole.

Mattisse at GAN and GAR
The same can be said as above. Mattisse has shown a lot of interest and dedication in these areas. They have reviewed more articles in these areas than most people and put in a lot of work. They show a desire to improve the encyclopedia and believe that these areas are central in promoting high quality work.

Mattisse at DYK
Mattisse has done a lot of good in helping out reviewing DYKs when needed. DYK always needs fresh eyes reviewing hooks, and Mattisse (like Awadewit) has brought their knowledge of content building standards to DYK in a manner which ensures that we have decent pages passing through and not some of the problems that we had previously (original research, copyright problems, etc).

Mattisse at Ottava Rima's RfA
I noticed that Karanacs quoted this link from my RfA. Karanacs also characterized me as a defender. Note, I have expressed at Malleus's talk page and others that I do not care positive or negative towards Mattisse in incidents that they are involved in, meaning that I look out to defend a few people from negative punishment, but do not care about the merits of the case (in particular, it was Malleus). As such, it is clear that Mattisse and I are not friends, nor do we work together. We do not collaborate or any such regard. As pointed out by Mattisse in the above link, they disagree with my handling of many incidents. The responses to Mattisse's oppose showed a level of hostility towards Mattisse that I thought was inappropriate and moved to the RfA's talk page here. Although they expressed fear of involvement around me, it is understandable as there were others who agreed with what Mattisse stated: Chillum, rʨanaɢ, and RegentsPark. Yes, I have defended them before, but as you can see from the above the "defense" was not based on personal feelings nor any relationship between Mattisse and myself. I defended their ability to stay here, unblocked, and not topic banned because I believe that Mattisse does a lot of good for this community and that their negative criticism of others is either based on evidence, is a common view, or is not to the extent that causes anything but a few sore feelings.

Evidence presented by Jennavecia
Mattisse is a highly valued contributor to the project, performing tasks vital to the improvement of the encyclopedia in the area of content. She has provided impressive work in the areas of FA, GA and DYK as a reviewer as well as a writer, and has become known as a high quality copy-editor. Unfortunately, Mattisse has a propensity to assume bad faith and to misrepresent other's comments, casting aspersions on their intentions.

Mattisse assumes bad faith, misrepresents other's comments

 * Several examples of Mattisse failing to AGF are present in a discussion on my talk page. Read the discussion here.
 * Mattisse spoke of "the editors that have been alerted by your side of the issue", seeming to assume anyone commenting in disagreement with her had been canvassed by another who disagreed with her.
 * Following me telling her to "do what you want", when asked if she could replace the template I had removed, she stated:
 * "I am too intimidated to replace it myself, as you might block me for reverting you. An administrator enters a content dispute, but editors like me are vulnerable to your whims. It has never been understandable why admins chooses to block under certain conditions. I know they can block without warning for even joking comments on talk pages that the other editor acknowledges is a joke at the time. Therefore, I believe you could ban me or block me for whatever length of time you want. Can I risk that? No."
 * Once I pointed out the absurdity of her comment, both noting (on two pages) that I am neither acting as an admin nor in a position to block, she stated:
 * "As an editor, I can never be sure that through the whimsy of an admin I will not be blocked. Never have I felt at the mercy of an admin so strongly as I do at this moment. Jennavecia still has not clarified anything. It is unknown if I would be blocked for reverting the removal of the GAR template..."
 * She goes on to completely misrepresent my opinion of her and her work in GA, casting aspersions on my intentions for posting my GA credentials, so to speak.
 * "Jennavecia is saying she has no respect at all for my judgment by humiliating me in my attempts to keep up the standards of GA. Under these conditions, I will not review any more articles for GA. I do not want to be blocked for having good judgment that is not politically correct in the eyes of an admin who clearly thinks she is the superior in a content dispute." (same diff as previous)
 * Mattisse has on multiple occasions stated that I have threatened to block her or otherwise given her reason to fear such, at least once seeming to refer to me as a "block-happy admin". This is, of course, not supported by evidence and contradicts my blocking history.
 * In Requests for comment/Mattisse 3, Mattisse claims that SandyGeorgia posted a suggestion on my talk page that I block Mattisse based on material found in her archives. Her diff to support this shows no such suggestion.
 * Also in that RFC, she claims that I threatened to block her based on comments she made on Malleus Fatuorum's talk page. I did warn her about her comments there, which included many personal attacks, however, I did not threaten to block her. I merely stated "It's not worth a block."

Mattisse violates WP:POINT
Mattisse has acknowledged that she does not react well to stress and "fear", as she put it. Indeed, no editor should fear anything or anyone on this project. To me, this indicates a deeper problem that neither ArbCom nor any other area of Wikipedia is equipped to address. Regardless, examples of Mattisse's WP:POINTiness:
 * Mattisse creates a section on her user page titled "Plague". She expands it with more names several times . She then changes the title to "Torment" and expands it further . The list ultimately included 16 editors.
 * Mass notifying those she's found involved in the most recent conflict with: (Noting a particularly well-put statement by MastCell in response to the post on SandyGeorgia's talk page.) ":"Please join: Please join the arbitration against me. All negative comments are welcome at Requests for arbitration under my name. Perhaps you choose not to participate, but I believe it would be doing me a favor if I am banned from Wikipedia. Otherwise, I will continue to contribute and that is not good for my welfare. Regards, Mattisse.""


 * Analysis of this evidence discussed here.

Evidence presented by Tex
I've only really dealt with Mattisse in one situation, but I've seen her being disruptive in quite a few places. Unfortunately, since she is such a prolific editor, it's almost impossible to track through so many edits to find the diffs. It would behoove arbs to have a look at the Buckingham Palace FAR page in it's entirety to get an idea of some of the disruption. That article was retained as a FA because of Risker and Casliber despite Mattisse's disruption.

Matisse's disruption and assumptions of bad faith
One of the main reasons for the 3rd RFC was Mattisse's attitude and disruption on FAR. Mattisse begged for days to have that RFC closed and mentioned that she would stop commenting on FAR and FAC if the RFC were closed, see here. After the RFC was closed on Febrary 9th, Mattisse continued to stir the pot in FAR when she went to the Restoration Comedy FAR to "warn" the nominator about a group of editors that would attack him for nominating it. She also, on numerous occasions accused Casliber of "bad faith" in bringing that RFC. She also continued to disrupt the Buckingham Palace FAR by refusing to assume good faith on Casliber's part. After Casliber asked for 10 days to get the references he needed, Mattisse would not leave the Buckingham Palace FAR alone and let Casliber go to the library to check out the books like he asked.

Mattisse also has a tendency to go back and change her comments after they have already been responded to, changing the meaning of her comments so it looks like the person responding to it is out of touch. She did that on the Buckingham Palace FAR by adding the "fact" that Sandy Georgia "invited" Mattisse back to comment on FAR. If you look at the timestamps, however, Sandy's comment was actually posted some 14 days before Mattisse promised to stop editing FAR. This happened just after a conversation on Risker's talk page where Risker was trying to advise Mattisse not to do this exact thing and Hans Adler had mentioned earlier in the FAR.

And speaking of her saying she will never contribute to FAC or FAR again, she has said that on numerous occassions, but has failed to do so. It will take hours to sift through her contributions to find all the times she has claimed that she would stop, but here are a few.

Evidence presented by Cyborg Ninja
| It is important that you see this.

Mattisse threatens "endless misery"
This is a diff where Mattisse threatens "endless misery" to another user and even calls an administrator a "dick." She also says she will be back in a "destructive way" and to "beware." She has called herself "an asshole," "an evil person," and "a horrible person."

Mattisse to LessHeardVanU: "You are a WP:DICK"
Abusive to not only editors, but administrators as well.

Mattisse calls Wikipedia an "evil place"
She has also threatened to leave several times only to never do so.

Has her behavior truly changed? Why does she continue to argue with other editors and find herself in arbitration repeatedly? Why do we ignore this behavior and allow it to continue? Wikipedia will still exist and perhaps be even stronger with the contributions of people who will finally be free to add to Wikipedia without retaliation from Mattisse.

Mattisse has acknowledged recent wrongdoing and apologized for same
Mattisse has acknowledged recent misbehavior and apologized for it before this case was opened here.

Previous requests for comment regarding Mattisse
It should be noted that as per Requests for comment/Mattisse, there is a unanimous endorsement by all outside parties commenting that the RfC was "brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary", which is this case included Mattisse. It should also be noted that in the same unanimous view it was found that Mattisse was subject to a "number of visious (sic) personal attacks". The second time Mattisse was the subject of an RfC, Requests for comment/Mattisse 2, the outside view, again unanimous, was that Mattisse had done nothing wrong, and she was in fact even almost commended by DCDuring for conduct in a dispute she had earlier had with that person. So, out of three RfCs filed against her to date, in the first she was, basically, found to have been the victim of vicious personal attacks and harassment, in the second the worst that was said about her was that she could be "excessively firm in tone", and in neither instance was she really rebuked in any real substantive way, other than in the second instance to be perhaps less emotional. This history does seem to demonstrate that for whatever reason Mattisse's history of "misconduct" is at least as much a history of being the victim of "misconduct" by others. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Other instances in which Mattisse has been the subject of dubiously justifiable criticism
This thread describes an incident in which Mattisse was threatened with a block for making an "in joke" to a fellow professional, which that party clearly acknowledged was taken as a joke by him.

Response to Cyborg Ninja
The material in question in your evidence is from 2007. Mattisse has I believe already had his or her behavior from that period analyzed already. There is some question whether the material you have produced is particularly relevant to the discussion at hand. Mattisse has also indicated that he or she has reconciled with LessHeardvanU, and really, using an extant shortcut to another page is hardly grounds for making a statement to the ArbCom anyway. At least one of the comments from the outside views in the previous RfC involing Mattisse and Cyborg Ninja may be of interest here as well. "Both Milk Shabazz and Cyborg have repeatedly assumed bad faith from the get-go, as they themselves noted, and this appears to be the rule for Cyborg Ninja, rather than the exception." was a statement endorsed by three parties. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Durova
With all due respect to the editor in question, who has an extremely impressive history here, I believe that she herself might be seen as having at least supported a form of "forum shopping", and certainly in potentially increasing the level of heat, by supporting the posting to ANI. The discussion, although heated, was one about GA assessment. The number of active administrators, who are the people who are primarily involved on the board she did post to. who are also knowledgable GA reviewers is perhaps not that high. The heated discussion, which was primarily about the GA process, was thus one with which many or most of them had little experience, and thus one which they were, perhaps, not the best qualified to judge. The one thing that they would be most likely to judge would be the heat, which seems to have arised primarily from the lack of a clear and precise response to Mattisse's questions from Cirt. By saying that, I am also, I wish to stress, in no way criticizing Cirt in not making such a response to Mattisse, although it might have helped if Cirt's own responses could be seen as having more directly addressed Mattisse's concerns. However, given Mattisse's apparent distrust of such things as ArbCom and administrators, or, at least, her apparent thinking that one of if not the primary purpose for ArbCom and noticeboards is to sanction people, it can reasonably be seen that posting to a noticeboard in and of itself may well have caused more damage than good. The more obvious, at least to me, place to post a message regarding such matters would have been the talk page(s) of the GA group, and there does not, at least to me at this point, seem to have been any such posting. On that basis, I can and do think that, while not necessarily malicious, the posting to ANI may itself been at least to some degree counterproductive, and could, if one so chose, perhaps be seen as "forum shopping". John Carter (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse commented at an RfC on May 4th
Mattisse commented at an RfC for the FA The Age of Reason on May 4, arguing, as did most commenting at the RfC, that a reference to Michael Moore being the new Thomas Paine was out of place in the article The Age of Reason. , who has (re-)inserted such references regularly for the past 2 years or so, disagreed, and continued to be very persistent about this, and Mattisse took umbrage. The lack of diplomacy aside, I think Mattisse's analysis and instincts here were spot on.

The same day I mentioned in passing a GA review Mattisse had done at the Scientology arbcom. .

Mattisse comments at Talk:Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology on May 5th
Mattisse expresses her opinion that the article is misleading and does not reflect the book:. , joined by, argues in a similarly intense and at times deliberately high-handed and needling manner:. Mattisse initiates GAR:

Cirt files an AN/I complaint on May 5th
This alleges "wikihounding" of Awadewit. Cirt neglects to mention her or his current involvement in the Scientology arbcom, but adds links to Mattisse's prior RfCs going back several years. Numerous editors who have previous beef with Mattisse join in the AN/I thread, one expressly noting that they know nothing about the specific case Cirt's complaint is about. 

The GAR for Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology is underway here: The concerns Mattisse raised have been confirmed, and in part already addressed. The net result of Mattisse's action, for Wikipedia, is that the encyclopedia is being improved. The net result for Mattisse is that she has been attacked, insulted, spoken down to by several admins, accused of wikihounding, had sanctions drawn up against her at AN/I by Cirt's mentor and advocate, Durova, and is now the subject of this case. Here, just to demonstrate that there seems to have been no prior history of animosity between Cirt and Mattisse, a GA review Mattisse did on one of Cirt's articles a couple of months ago:

As I see it, Mattisse crossed two editors with strongly held opinions. Both took it badly and were, frankly, intent on revenge, thinking that Mattisse was a vulnerable target (witness our presence here). As for Mattisse's motivatons, I think she is motivated by her integrity and love of the encyclopedic ideal, rather than the wish to get along with people or make friends, and she does not compromise on this. This makes her a great asset to the encyclopedia, as well as, sometimes, an annoyance to those whose work she critiques.

But also look at the other side: the number of barnstars Mattisse has received for her reviewing and article improvements and the grateful and enthusiastic comments that have come along with them from so many editors speak for themselves, as does the respect she enjoys among her peers in the reviewing processes. Jayen  466  00:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence discussions
Editors should note that there is an Analysis of evidence section at the bottom of the Workshop page, where discussions are ongoing as well. Jayen  466  10:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of incivility directed at Mattisse
Karanacs asked for evidence of incivility and abuse directed at Mattisse on the Workshop page. I replied there, but will include that reply here as well, for reference.

Here an example from 2 editors. (Bear in mind that Mattisse posted a description of further problems shortly after, and that a majority of editors subsequently voted delist, prior to substantial referencing improvements which resulted in the article being kept as FA.) Here is one from another user that wasn't directed at Mattisse, but illustrates the attitude that led to Mattisse sarcastically thanking (in the edit summary) that same user for letting her edit Buckingham Palace. I am not saying this is great diplomacy. But neither is this or this. . Another:. Edit summary: "Undid revision 251125502 by Mattisse Idiotic challenge; do some READING"

Missing diff
Mattisse says below, "Even SandyGeorgia berated him for this comment somewhere, although I can't find the diff." I came across it in my research today; it's here. Jayen  466  23:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Scope of Mattisse's involement in FAR/GAR nominations
As far as I can see, there have been exactly four Featured Article Reviews initiated by Mattisse over the past 15 months, with the first occurring in February 2008. Threeof these reviews resulted in delisting, while the fourth resulted in substantial article improvement before the article was kept.

I am aware of only two GARs Mattisse has initiated: The Ali's Smile/Naked Scientology GAR (still ongoing) which led to the AN/I complaint, and the GAR for Attachment therapy, also mentioned on this page, which resulted in delist.

Mattisse has been a productive contributor
I am not denying that there are behavioral problems to be addressed, but I do want to point out her excellent content (and reviewing) contributions. See this list of her 175 Good Article Reviews, her 75 Did You Know (DYK)s, and articles she has created. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition, she has copy-edited and reviewed many Featured article candidates (FACs), demonstrating her potential to collaborate and contribute without behavioral problems:
 * Loihi Seamount (FAC): (a few edits weren't hers.
 * Elwood Haynes (FAC) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse has not always assumed good faith
See this comment about another user, in which she refers to him as "not a very pleasant character" who "takes pleasure in using tactics to try to make people feel bad about themselves and show his superiority". See the corresponding Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents thread, although it did not seem to achieve anything. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse has contributed in a valuable way to Wikipedia
This is immediately apparent by looking at her impressive array of Featured Article promotions, over 450 article creations, more than 75 expansions/article creations which made it through DYK, and 21 barnstars in appreciation of her work here. She has also contributed significantly behind the scenes of DYK, reviewing hooks and ensuring that they are up to standard. ← Spidern  →  04:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

On Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology, Mattisse did not offer not offer constructive advice
Criticism of an article is many times productive, provided that the criticizing party offers relevant and workable suggestions to address their concerns. The dialogue between Matisse and others on this article was not constructive because Mattisse consistently responded to constructive answers to her criticisms with hostility, rather than presenting executable advice. ← Spidern  →  04:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) When faced with criticism of selective sourcing, Cirt responded multiple times  by stating that no further sources could be found.
 * 2) Matisse did not respond with additional sources in support of her argument. Instead, she resorted to criticizing the content of the book itself.
 * 3) Later, Cirt attempted to constructively address one concern that was brought up by Mattisse, and she responded by implying that editors were unwilling to cooperate. When Cirt requested that she take his response  of her criticism in good faith, she proceeded to mischaracterize Cirt's request: "Saying an article is POV is AGF?"

Evidence presented by Geometry guy
I don't much like spending my limited Wikitime on this kind of thing, but I believe some comments from me will be helpful, and I have added them below. Geometry guy 22:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

On GAR
The reassessment of good articles both by individual editors and the community is a vital part of the good article process. In the featured article process, featured article candidates are often subject to intense scrutiny from multiple reviewers, any actionable oppose may be grounds for not promoting, but once an article is promoted, it is not subject to Featured article review for at least 3-6 months. In contrast, each individual review of a good article nomination is only as good as the reviewer, and it is essential that good articles are open for reassessment at any time.

This difference is important when considering editor conduct: the filing of an FAR is a relatively rare event and may sometimes be interpreted as a hostile act where there is a dispute between editors; arbitrators will certainly have seen examples used in evidence. In contrast, whenever any editor has genuine concerns whether an article meets the good article criteria, reassessment is encouraged. Any uninvolved (and registered) editor may open an individual reassessment; any editor may open a community reassessment. While it is true that article contributors are not always happy that a reassessment has been initiated, good article reassessment is routine, and is needed whenever talk page dialogue cannot easily resolve concerns about the article.

On rare occasions, community reassessments are rejected because (e.g.) the issue is primarily a content dispute or the nomination is in bad faith. However, this should obviously be decided by an uninvolved editor. Geometry guy 20:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

On the Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology GAR
The incident that sparked this RfArb began (I believe) with a misunderstanding. The compilation Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology is available online, e.g. here. Half way through the first page of the first article there begins a quote from a Scientology magazine. The material is hostile towards psychiatry, but it isn't immediately clear (at least in the online version) where quotation ends and Burroughs own views return. Burroughs voice returns halfway though the third page with a note and "Now what is all this flap about psychiatrists?". However the compilation itself confuses the issue by stating in an introduction to a later piece: "Three months ago, William Burroughs... started a controversy going by publishing an attack on the psychiatry profession and related fields such as Scientology." He had hardly attacked psychiatry at all.

This introduction was quoted in the article, and Mattisse's initial post to the talk page began with exactly this misunderstanding. Cirt's response clarified the article slightly, but not the misunderstanding. Result: two editors with past history of less-than-great interactions looking at the same material from utterly different viewpoints. The discussion deteriorated rapidly.

In my view Mattisse was entirely correct to start a community GAR. Talk page discussion was going nowhere, and she raised perfectly reasonable concerns, whether correct or not. At this point however, interpersonal editor dynamics were already starting to take over, and other editors have provided evidence. Geometry guy 21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There is one further piece of evidence which I think is important. On 5 May, the day of the GAR incident, Mattisse made two posts on my talk page asking for my advice on the GAR reversion. The first post was at almost exactly the same time as Cirt took the dispute to AN/I. Unfortunately I was away on business and did not receive it until 24 hours later. I believe the incident might have evolved rather differently had I been around to smooth the waters. Anyway, it demonstrates Mattisse initially responding in a positive way to the dispute by seeking outside advice. Geometry guy 12:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A previous interaction
One of my previous interactions with Mattisse may be particularly relevant here, since it not only concerns Scientology, but was also one of the few other situations since the Jan/Feb RFC where Mattisse responded in a similar way to the latest incident. I would stress that by and large I believe Mattisse has been making some efforts to avoid confrontation since the RFC: please see my statement at the request.

The incident concerns a GAN review of Scientology in Germany by Mattisse, who drew my attention to problems with an SPA, Voxpopulis. In order to discuss the issue I read the article, and was rather concerned that it treated the German government with some disdain in comparison with a friendly attitude towards Scientology. Mattisse considered my comments as unsolicited and unwelcome intervention from someone in a position of authority (no editor has authority in the GA process): Karanacs' evidence provides some diffs below; in addition to the initial thread, two other threads from my talk page may provide context, as do Talk:Scientology_in_Germany and Talk:Scientology_in_Germany and this.

As the threads show, Mattisse was pretty upset, and given her perception of me, I understand the way she felt. Fortunately, I did not become stressed or angry about her posts, and so in response I was able to underreact and focus on the issues, not the conflict. However, I did not compromise my position on the article unless persuaded by good argument, and Mattisse remained very upset. The article is now much improved (Jayen's positive response was central to this).

Mattisse apologized a month later, by which time this was water long under the bridge for me. Now she continues to seek my advice on difficult reviewing decisions. I see this as an encouraging sign: contrary to the harshest criticism against her, Mattisse is perfectly able to appreciate that an editor with whom she has had a very strong disagreement is not necessarily a long-term enemy. I hope the arbitrators will find ways to encourage this positive trend. Geometry guy 21:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Karanacs
I believe that Mattisse is dedicated to improving the encyclopedia, and I have great respect for her copyediting skills. (When I am asked to recommend copyeditors, I do often recommend her.) I have interacted with her primarily at FAC, and I have also followed interactions she has had with other editors (active at FAC/GA/DYK) whose talk pages I watch. I have Mattisse's talk page watchlisted as well. For the most part, I think that she is a fine reviewer in our content processes.

RfC 3
The most recent RfC on Mattisse's behavior (January), revolved heavily around Mattisse's inability to always assume good faith. Mattisse supported a motion there that asked her to always assume good faith.

After the RfC closed, Mattisse's response has been to assume bad faith on the part of those who filed the RFC, and to bring up these bad faith assumptions in many locations, even months after the close.
 * "the point of {the RfC} was to point out my every fault in a magnified way with the goal of driving me away...FAC wants me gone."
 * "An RFC was opened on me because I reviewed an article and improved it by upgrading the article myself"
 * RfC was "punishment" for saying an article did not meet the criteria
 * "The RfC was brought in bad faith"
 * "SandyGeorgia turned on me and initiated an RfC against me, at which I received mostly support because of the lack of evidence....No one had tried to solve anything prior to filing it." (please see RfC for documentation on multiple instances of users, including me, trying to coach Mattisse to change her behavior) In this particular conversation, SandyGeorgia (who neither filed nor certified the dispute) had never been mentioned;  Mattisse brought her name in

Mattisse assumes bad faith about FAC editors and personalizes disagreements
Note: I have tried to only include recent comments. If requested, I can provide evidence of this from at least August 2008. Karanacs (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

At the RfC, Mattisse was asked to provide explanations for many of her assertions against FAC editors (and had been previously asked many, many times to provide evidence). Rather than do so, she continues to push her belief that FAC editors are a cabal of horrible editors; this leads to an unpleasant atmosphere at WT:FAC and may scare off potential reviewers.
 * "substantial dangers of daring to review at FAC"
 * "almost all my problems stem from FAC and FACR"
 * offers useful comments at FAC, but ends her post with on top of it, reviewing articles is enormously unpleasant, if not dangerous to one's mental health
 * This is a long thread, but it shows Mattisse making both insightful comments as well as those that hijack the thread and/or show an assumption of bad faith Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive36

Mattisse interprets comments in worst light

 * see the conversation on Lar's talk page from April 6, where Mattisse twists what Lar says into thinking that he is totally against her User_talk:Lar permanent link
 * misinterprets a comment on her talk page and uses it as a slam against another editor "Agree that he is not worth taking seriously"
 * Awadawit mentions her "expertise in a narrow field" in a discussion about more narrow topics appearing at FAC; rather than interpret this as "I write what I know", Mattisse interprets it as an attack on herself and "a very narrow and prejudicial assumption of yours"
 * later in the same conversation " best for those of us not welcome here to remember that fact and to keep in mind that we are in a hostile environment on this page. I realize you dominate here and certainly do not mean to contest that. I mistakenly wanted to discuss the issue of "experts". But I give up and cede to your dominance. "

Mattisse assumes bad faith at FAR

 * Mattisse makes bad-faith comments on an FAR which she has been previously uninvolved
 * On Mar 16, Risker posts on Mattisse's talk page, reminding her that in the RfC she agreed to refrain from bad faith assumptions.
 * Mttisse's response "You see me as acting in bad faith when I am trying to help another, innocent editor, hoping that he will not end up as confused and desperate as I did when I wandered unprepared into the ugliness of those disruptive attacks" and continues her belief that the RfC vindicated her behavior, and more complaints against Casliber for not working at a pace she thought reasonable
 * then immediately posts on Risker's talk page accusing Risker of assuming bad faith about Mattisse
 * Durova thenasks Mattisse to extend more good faith (on M's talk page)
 * M's response: the only issue is a clique of editors
 * Mattisse did strike the bad faith comments the following day, but her "apology" was a little lacking - I regret saying that any of the editors that posted in defence of the other article would post in mistaken defence of this one

Mattisse personalizes some conflicts
Mattisse frequently comments on the editor, not the content. "That is why I am surprised that finally in March Casliber is just now getting to the library, having made this one of the premises of the RFC against me"

For a very recent example (May 9) of this type of behavior, see this thread: User_talk:Viriditas/Archive_27. It shows Mattisse misinterpreting the rules of DYK, displaying ownership of an article, personalizing a conflict and essentially creating a problem where none actually exists. Simultaneously, Mattisse conducted a similar discussion at Template Talk:DYK, where she again showed persecution complex tendencies: I would like to change it back, but don't want to get into trouble. Even after she was assured that her hook was okay, she continued to badger Viriditas on his talk page.
 * you are being unnecessarily inconsiderate of me
 * It means that much to you to deny me a little pleasure?
 *  if that is worth banning me from Wikipedia, then please have your say at Arbitration. (per the pattern, banning had never been mentioned before Mattisse brought this up)

Mattisse divides editors into "friends" or "enemies"

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * - divisions made sometimes on who posts on which user talk page
 * Frequently keeps lists of people she is unhappy with on her talk page, or copies/links to other talk page posts she considers inflammatory on her own talk page (yet there is never any indication she is prepping for an RfC or other dispute resolution)
 * User_talk:Mattisse/Archive_20
 * User_talk:Mattisse/Archive_19
 * quid pro quo list on Feb 2
 * See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence (Plague/Torment list)
 * - inappropriate forum for this question

Mattisse feels personally persecuted by disagreements with other editors
Mattisse's overreactions to some incidents can cause damage to the reputations of other editors. and assumes the resulting ANI thread about her comment is due only to where she posted it "I personally do not get involved in AN/I drama and must refuse any offer that has that potential. Posting on your pages appears to have that result." (did not understand that it was her comment that led to the ANI thread)
 * "I knew they would follow me around and note my every entry..."
 * feels persecuted because of her reviews, so won't do them any more
 * "I am frightened of posting near you" (to User:Ottava Rima, who has often been one of her defenders )
 * 
 * "I was not prepared and was not skilled enough to act as you wanted me to, and I therefore displeased you" - thought Geometry Guy not just another editor, but someone in power that she could not go against
 * After asking for advice, she informs the editor "am I free to have my own views or do I have to follow your POV as expressed above?"
 * 
 * 

Mattisse makes personal attacks
Mattisse believes that she does not make personal attacks. and asks others not to comment on her motivations
 * This post starts well (admonishing another editor for personal attacks) and degenerates into similar behavior
 * personal comments toward Malleus on another's RfA culminates in a note on other user's talk page about Malleus's character

Mattisse has acknowledged some of her problems

 * "my anxiety and discomfort which I now experience with this article prevented me from perceiving accurately"
 * "I was enormously rude to {some people who posted on her talk page}. I should not have done that. ...  I feel much better, now that I stand up for myself then I did in the days when I was trying to be a nice, likable editor."

Mattisse often asks for sanctions on herself
These are just a few of the instances where Mattisse has explicitly stated that she would like to be banned. She has also, many, many, many times suggested that she should be topic-banned from FAC, FAR, GAN, or DYK.
 * "I am asking them to ban me and I fervently hope they will for my own sake."
 * "I believe it would be doing me a favor if I am banned from Wikipedia"
 * "if I am not banned, which I hope will happen" (6 January)
 * message on Carcharoth's talk page May 18; also makes allegations against a cabal and mentions "editors would rather dump on me than take seriously my points."

At her most recent RfC, she proposed a block on herself. In the ensuing dicussion, another editor asked While I agree that no one seems to want Mattisse banned, save Mattisse herself, at what point does the community call her bluff? - Mattisse responded in the thread under this post, so she ought to understand that if she kept asking for sanctions, someone might be likely to mete them out.

I can't tell whether Mattisse is serious about this or just being dramatic. Regardless, these types of requests often derail any attempt to discuss her behavior. It is difficult to explore solutions and measures that can be taken to help her if she will only discuss her wish to be banned.

Note also that Mattisse seems to understand that she must be warned before being blocked "Before anyone could block me, I would have to be warned" (23 Nov 2008)

Res ipsa loquitur
Editor review/Cosmic Latte. This was my first exposure to Mattisse that I can recall. I think her conduct there speaks for itself, so I won't elaborate here. If it's tl;dr, just take a look at the questions posted by Mattisse in the "Review from Mattisse" section.

Since then, I've seen this corrosive pattern of interaction repeated again and again. I'm sure Mattisse does good work here; certainly there's no shortage of people vouching for that. Maybe, as Brad suggested, there is a way to keep the good work that she does while jettisoning the negative.

I accept that Mattisse is sensitive, and I am intentionally and substantially limiting the evidence I present here in deference to that sensitivity. The central problem could be simply resolved: if Mattisse extended a fraction of the consideration to other peoples' feelings that she evidently demands for her own, there would be no issue. I doubt ArbCom can mandate that sort of empathy, though, and I don't have any bright ideas. MastCell Talk 19:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to questions from Mattisse
[Cross-posted from talk page; I haven't removed this from the talk page since it has acquired several responses there.]

Mattisse asks: "Is there any evidence that I have disrupted DYK, GA, GAR, FAR, or FAC since the Requests for comment/Mattisse 3 was closed due to inactivity?"

The short answer is yes. The longer answer:
 * First of all, Requests for comment/Mattisse 3 was not closed because of "inactivity", exactly. It was closed after Mattisse stated that she would avoid FAC and FARC completely:
 * ʘ Mattisse: "I believe it is best that I desist completely from any involvement at FAC or FACR. In an effort to close this RFC, I will resolve not edit at FAC and FARC again, nor post on the FAC talk page."
 * ʘ Mattisse: "Once out of FAC and FARC, I am fine. So this RFC was good in the end, as it enabled me to see that. The outcome was best for me."


 * The RfC was closed because it had run its course and generated useful feedback and (apparent) resolution, not because of "inactivity".
 * ʘ Mailer diablo (closing admin): "This discussion has received its fair share of editors and community input as compared to other similar RfC which may be less. There's even possible solutions being listed, indication of good progress made in the course of the discussion."


 * Within a month of the RfC's closure, Mattisse was again active in the areas she had pledged to avoid. Her reasoning for disregarding her pledge from the RfC:
 * ʘ Mattisse: "The RFC was brought in bad faith. The RFC was closed with no limitations on my behavior."


 * Mattisse's actions in Featured article review/Restoration comedy (after the RfC) could be considered disruptive. Certainly multiple concerns about her behavior there were expressed:
 * ʘ Note from Risker, dismissed by Mattisse.
 * ʘ Discussion of a ban from FAR.

In other words, yes, there have been problems related to FAR/FARC since the RfC closed. A bigger issue is the revisionist history that is being provided. I'm not trying to cause additional stress for anyone. However, this cycle is poisonous and there is no hope of breaking out of it unless the basic issues at play, or at least the basic facts readily apparent from diffs and page histories, are acknowledged. Right now, past events are being viewed through the prism of self-justification and projection of bad faith onto anyone remotely critical. There is a pattern of pledges being made in an apparent effort to deflect unwanted scrutiny and then disregarded. I don't see how we can reasonably hope to move forward when this case seems to fit the previous, repetitive pattern so neatly. MastCell Talk 21:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Durova
See User:Durova/Mattisse evidence (moved due to length). Context is necessary here. As I explained to Sam Korn at user talk, in the absence of context I assumed substantial good faith of Mattisse earlier this year due to her excellent content work. Other editors who had interacted with her longer were more jaded. The subpage explains why my good faith was ultimately withdrawn.

Regarding Mattisse's evidence below
Per evidence in user space, Mattisse's participation at the DYK thread occurred shortly after she had accused me of gross impropriety in several venues. She had not retracted that claim. At the DYK thread I offered her the opportunity to clarify her intentions and she avoided the question, then I offered her a second opportunity to clarify shortly after submitting my evidence here. Again she declined the opportunity. Her responses came in three varieties:
 * 1) Change the subject.
 * 2) Introduce red herrings.
 * 3) Claim not to understand.

When someone consistently responds that way to questions about ambiguous behavior, the inevitable result is greater doubt. The result is disruptive whether or not the intention is.

Mattisse can hardly be justified in blaming me for doubting her good faith: she spread those doubts aggressively and refused multiple offers to clear the air. And, tellingly, she has declined to address the specific instances that I raised as evidence of deceptive intent. Durova Charge! 22:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That GAR
As Geometry Guy noted above, the flashpoint has been Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1. At some stage during the GAR, someone removed the GAR template from Talk:Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology. At some point an attempt was made to reinstate the link to the GAR page, but the link was invalid as at yesterday evening, see my request for other GA reviewers to contribute. It had been fixed by the time I started on this evidence.

On discovering that the link had been removed, Mattisse complained at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1 that the likely result was that only supporters of the article would get to know about the GAR. Mattisse requested my "honest opinion" on whether an article should "should have a "Critical reception" or "Critical analysis" or similar section to pass GA". "honest opinion" was not an empty phrase because Mattisse knows me well enough to expect nothing else.

When I "arrived" the main contributors to the GAR besides Mattisse were supporters of the article's GA status - Awadewit, who appears to be the main recent editor of the article; Cirt; and Fainites, who had recently passed the article as a GA. Cirt almost immediately pointed out that Mattisse had invited me, but declined an invitation to explain the implications of that comment.

When I looked at the GAR I saw the situation was already tense - and also that Mattisse had made some attempts to calm the situation down, including at least one apology for her part in a heated exchange. Since then some of the more heated parts have been snipped out and pasted at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1, so you'll have to flip-flop between this and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1 to see who said what, when, to whom.

Unlike Mattisse and the article's supporters, I saw the book that is the article's subject as a collection of quasi-political essays about Scientology rather than as literature. From that point of view I concluded that the article was incomplete without comments on its reception and influence or lack of it, and therefore failed to meet WP:WIAGA's "broad coverage" criterion. As Geometry Guy said above, no one reviewer can dictate the result of a GAR. However I believe it was justifiable for Mattisse to initiate the GAR, since there was reasonable doubt about whether the article is GA standard. I have also just checked Mattisse's opening comments in the GAR and think they were moderate, constructive and positive.

My other interactions with Mattisse
Mattisse was one of 3 GA reviewers whose conduct of reviews encouraged me to submit articles for GA review (the first 3 just happened) and then to start doing GA reviews myself. IIRC she has now reviewed 3 articles that I have submitted, and these reviews have been amicable and sometimes fun. I am certainly not a passive "reviewee" and sometimes respond firmly to comments, but explaining as clearly and politely as possible my reasons for the item that was commented on. In these cases we have reached agreement quickly and without any fuss. As a result we have occasionally asked each other for help - a few 2nd opinions and 1 case where I asked Mattisse to help an editor with copyediting an article I was reviewing for GA status. --Philcha (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take the liberty of commenting on two points made earlier to-day, because I don't think they applies to all situations of the classes described:
 * Re Moni3's "when Mattisse encounters editors who are more confident in their grasp of article content, editing, copy editing, writing, and Wiki policy, she no longer is helpful", I'm no shrinking violet and in 2 of the 3 cases where Mattisse GA reviewed articles I'd nominated I explained why I thought some of her recommendations were off-target. After further discussion sometimes she accepted my reasoning, sometimes I accepted hers, and sometimes we found a compromise that worked for both of us. In one case she sought a second opinion. None of these involved any kind of drama. The largest and most complex of the three reviews was the 2nd, yet Mattisse signed up for the 3rd and it went pretty smoothly. I conclude, that for Mattisse, meeting a confident and knowledgeable editor is not necessarily a cause of trouble. --Philcha (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not have what Fainites describes as "GeometryGuy's saintlike patience" - you can find witnesses for that quite easily - yet I've had no trouble with Mattisse. --Philcha (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

GeometryGuy suggested I provide links to evidence:
 * history of GA review of Opabinia
 * history of GA review of Arthropod
 * history of GA review of Sector General --Philcha (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A few other comments
A lot of the complaints appear to start with Mattisse's initiating or commenting in FARs and GARs. Reassessments have a high probability of being tense, because they arise either from a disputed GA / FA review or from reassessment of an article that was promoted when the criteria were much less demanding. When GA-reviewing in unfamiliar subject areas, I look for other GAs and FAs in these subjects as a guide to what their scope should be. My impression is that many GAs and FAs promoted before mid-2007 would now struggle to make B-class. So a GAR or FAR often threatens some editor's trophy collection, and some react to that in a hostile way. Buckingham Palace, cited in one of the complaints, is a good example:
 * Promoted to FA on June 27, 2005, when it looked like this - no citations.
 * FAR initiated on 19 April 2007, when the article looked like this, still only a handful of citations. Kept as FA on 31 May 2007, when the article looked like, with a few more citations but still far too much unref'd content by current standards.
 * Featured article review/Buckingham Palace where the first comments, by Mattise, were precise and informative, and the first few of these that I checked were correct - the article looked like this at the time.
 * The trouble seems to have started with Hans Adler's comment at 17:07, 1 February 2009.

Re Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1, which seems to have triggered this RfArb:
 * I agree with Mattise's opinion that the lack of independent commentary makes the article fall below GA standard. This was a conclusion I had reached independently and earlier, as a result of working on Amstrad PCW, Locoscript and Next (novel) (check the histories), which I mentioned at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1 in support of my view.
 * As I said earlier, Mattisse's opening comments were constructive and positive.
 * I'm sorry to say that Jennavecia, whom I'd thought of as a very sensible person, blundered by removing the GAR banner form the article's Talk page, as that had the effect of turning the GAR into a Walled garden. Mattisse's request to Jennavecia to restore the GAR banner, cited in Jennavecia's complaint, was polite for a couple of "rounds", although Jennavecia had already opened fire by describing the GAR as "as a POINTy action". That description is falsified by the fact that other reviewers besides Mattisse and myself regard the lack of independent commentary as incompatible with GA status.

I'll leave it to the Arbs to check for stories behind the stories in the other diffs, histories, etc.

I know perfectly well that Mattisse has weaknesses, which I think stem from an agonising lack of self-confidence - I first picked that up from some GA review comments she gave me, and no-one's ever described me as sensitive. I think a lot of the incidents in which Mattisse has been involved were provoked by the hyena-like behaviour of other editors, some of whom have difficulty in restraining the pack-hunting instincts our species inherited from the plains of East Africa. I admit these are lurid phrases, but I've seen other instances of pack-hunting, including a use of WP:AFD as harassment, where the victim was blocked for his protests - and I rescued one of these articles at AfD by half an hour's googling, which any of the earlier "delete, not notable" voters could have done. The Arbs need to consider whether WP should become the preserve of wikilawyers with thick skins and killer instincts. --Philcha (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Long term grudges and pointy reviews
First encounter with Mattisse, the FAC of Reactive attachment disorder in early 2008. I am putting this in, not by way of complaint, but because it is relevent to subsequent behaviour. I was new to FAC and received a great deal of careful help from respected editors. Halfway through the nom. Mattisse appeared and within a short period of time, on a subject she plainly knew little about, had implied that the article was written from PMIDs, accused the editors of "cherry-picking" journal papers, brought in comparisons to other articles and disputes I knew nothing of and claimed, quite wrongly, everything in this article was covered in other articles and implied that papers by leading names in the field were thrown together by a bunch of undergraduates. She was asked to explain. She was so disruptive that the nom had to be restarted. I thought she was amazingly offensive. To be fair, Mattisse subsequently apologised for her behaviour and copyedited by way of apology. I e-mailed her some sources which changed her views somewhat about the subject and we had a pleasant, chatty exchange on the talkpage before she made some odd remarks about repressed memory and disappeared. So all was well.

Second significant encounter was at the Attachment therapy GAR 10 months later. Mattisse appeared at the point at which it was being passed, early on 22nd October, saying she had concerns. I responded at 18.59 saying there was alot in what she was saying and would give a response on Friday. I added more later that evening asking some questions for clarification and for more time, being busy in RL. The reviewer DanaBoomer agreed this approach and told me she had asked for a little time. I was therefore somewhat surprised when Mattisse started the GAR late that night. Note the GAR includes a PA to the effect that having made 900 edits I don't have the perspective to sort the article. On going to her talkpage I was disturbed to find this, this this and this and this followed not long after by this and this. Following the conversation to Malleous talkpage reveals this and this. Note the decision to list straight away taken just after she had agreed to give me time to address her concerns.

The first point she had made about pseudoscience is dishonest and malicious. It implies previous exchanges about AT with me being reluctant to ackowledge it was a pseudoscience. In fact, not only had there been no exchanges with Mattisse in relation to the AT article and AT being a psuedoscience apart from this and my reply. I had been part of an arbitration removing attachment therapist socks promoting AT, had an exchange on the talkpage about finding a source naming it as a pseudoscience, and finally found a source doing just that in February 08. The purpose of this post was presumably to give the reader a certain prejudicial view of me as a promoter of pseudoscience.

Secondly, I seemed to have walked into some long term issues Mattisse had with SandyGeorgia, the implication being that I was part of some sort of group or one of her "boys". I thought Mattisses post about SandyGeorgia was one of the most disturbing things I had seen on Wikipedia.

Thirdly, there was a conspiracy theory type "GA -v- FA" tone about the whole thing, relating to a supposed agenda by a group of editors, see this too on the same page.

Fourthly, she misrepresented the reviewers position in a particularly offensive way as having simply passed something because of "interference" by SandyGeorgia. In fact, SandyGeorgia's "interference" consisted of adding a dab box and this after the reviewer asked me to remove cites from the lead. The reviewer politely objected to this characterisation by Mattisse of her actions and her haste.

My first instinct was to have nothing to do with the GAR given the posts on Mattisses talkpage. It is impossible to take such a review seriously against the background of such pointy, disturbing and malicious posts. I finally decided to take part in the review because not to do so seemed rude to the reviewer.

My suspicion however, that Mattisse would pursue delist at all costs was confirmed when I answered, dealt with and made changes according to all her substantive points, which she ignored completely, having commented on a section which she plainly had not read at all. She listed a whole bunch of fresh concerns which were frankly nonsense and unconstructive (such as misleading info about the length of the article, citing readable prose for the comparison but the whole thing for this one - something pointed out by another editor later), and finally, having bitterly complained throughout that the article mentioned mainstream positions as well as pseudoscience, supported a good faith reviewer who supported attachment therapy and thought it should be portrayed as middle ground and cutting edge, and "reflect the entire spectrum from mainstream to fringe".

I should say I had no issues with the other reviewers whether they supported or not. I fully accept writing pseudoscience articles is very difficult and perhaps I'll never make it. However, I should also say that GeometryGuys sterling and good faith efforts to keep the peace and reduce conflict on this and the Ali's Smile GAR don't really cut the mustard. When activities leading to listing are so clearly pointy and malicious, ignoring that and pretending its not happening and moving unpleasant allegations to a different page merely puts a temporary, inadequate sticking plaster over a deep seated, infected wound. Saying its perfectly OK to immediately GAR someones GA (with rude comments about them not bothering to respond within a few hours), when you have a long term and an immediate history of bad-tempered conflict, keeps a superficial appearance of peace rather than actually keeping the peace.

Mattisse has also perpetuated the myth of interference by SandyGeorgia in GA reviews causing the article to be promoted. Other editors here have given these diffs.

Finally, the attachment therapy GAR was cited by Casliber at the RfC. I later added some more diffs under "oither editors...". These related to the diffs added here about here pre-GAR talkpage activities. I responded to yet more overblown claims about "ethical" concerns. I made it plain the AGF/NPA points were my concern, not the delisting. She seems to believe that her behaviour was justified because the article was delisted. Subsequently, when expressing my view as the reviewer of Ali's Smile, Mattisse claimed I had a "conflict of interest" because of the earlier attachment therapy GAR and effectively that my modest contribution to the GAR on an article I had reviewed was in bad faith. She made a similar allegation at ANI when I corrected her misrepresentation of the RfC. Here Mattisse makes a totally spurious allegation which I believe she knew very well to be false that I had added one of Caslibers charges to his RfC. Presumably this is part of the effort to make me look like part of a group.

fomenting cabalism and ill feeling
Flattered as I am to be included as a "FAC editor" on Mattisses plague list, despite having precisely one measly FAC to my name from over a year ago, my presence there is an example of the efforts Mattisse makes to foment a sort of cold war between FAC and GAN. She is putting me, like others, in a camp to which I am not conscious of belonging, and which probably does not exist except insofar as people have a common experience of having incurred the enmity of Mattisse. She creates the impression that there is some sort of GA cabal of "experienced reviewers" who can be called upon by her to support her, regardless of how rude or offensive she has been, and that others views are less worthy. Also that people she puts in the FAC group act with ill-feeling and some sort of malicious agenda towards the GA group. Also that people other than her in DYK and GA are in it for the awards. (This from an editor who assiduously collects and displays all hers!)

Mattisses corrupting effect on these processes arises partly because of her very good quality work in many areas. People who have seen her high quality, trouble free review work assume, when she targets her enemies, that there is substance in her attacks and criticisms. Often there is substance in points she makes about articles, but this does not mean they are not essentially pointy. Far from being the victim she portrays, she is in fact abusing her power.

Mattisse is a prolific editor appearing across GAN, GAR, DYK, FAC and FAR. There will be many editors who have the expertise and knowledge to contribute but not the time nor the inclination to get involved in conflict or to get involved in long term complex relationships with Mattisse. I question why people like this should take the trouble to pursue FAs and GAs or try to learn how to be a GA reviewer in this kind of atmosphere. Not every editor has GeometryGuys saintlike patience and skills, nor is it reasonable to expect they should. Experienced GA reviewers are not made overnight. Those editors who take the view that they haven't had any trouble with her and therefore the fault must lie within those who have might like to consider how many of those expressing concerns about Mattisse here and at the RfC were former valued colleagues.

Response to allegations (written when it said "grudge" - now changed)
Firstly I note that in her evidence, Mattisse has not addressed at all the behavioural concerns based on the talkpage diffs immediately preceding the GAR.

In response to the allegation that I "support the FAC regulars" against Mattisse "at every opportunity"; my activities consist of 1) adding some extra diffs and my view to the RfC started by Casliber, (no.6) on a topic on which he had already provided some diffs. 2) Expressing my opinion as the reviewer on the issue in question on the Ali's Smile GAR, ie the lack of a critical reception section. This did not mention Mattisse. Mattisse responded with a personal attack and bad faith allegation claiming I was resentful about the 6 month old attachment therapy GAR and therefore had a COI. Also the "me and the other experienced GA reviewers" bit, unlike us lesser mortals! 3) correcting Mattisses statement at the ANI that the RfC was only about FAC. Mattisse responded with another personal attack and later a false claim that I had included allegations about Caslibers sig in Caslibers RfC (diff above).

Whilst I accept that an editor taken to ANI will defend themselves in not necessarily the calmest way, the bit at the GAR really is unacceptable. Mattisse had nothing to do with the article when I reviewed it. Mattisse herself complains about being made to feel unwelcome or excluded or the subject of cabals yet here she is, starting a GAR without notifying the reviewer and effectively running me off the review with personal attacks and bad faith allegations should I dare to express an opinion, in order to bring in proper GA reviewers that she approves of! In fact, here is Mattisse doing the very thing she claims (wrongly) others do to her.

In response to the allegation that I held a grudge following the RAD FAC, my next interaction with Mattisse was her appearance on the AT talkpage with her concerns in response to which I said I could see what she was saying and would address them. That was all fine. It was only on going to her talkpage about timing that I saw all the other stuff.

I have not brought in the "FAC crowd" on anything, nor sought to. I'm not part of such a crowd, should it exist. Casliber started a bit of commentary on AT but was too busy to continue and left it hanging. Mattisse in fact sneered about this herself, saying on the RfC talkpage The people who thought I was "disrupting" should have stood up for the article and helped you fix it up.. This implies that people give opinions on articles based on the editor rather than the content.

If Mattisse has any other diffs of me having anything to do with her, which could in any way be considered improper, I'd be interested to see them. My view is that Mattisse originally attacked me because she was under the misapprehension that I was part of some FAC cabal. Far from Mattisse being driven from FAC, it is rather Mattisse who is driving others from GA. Note her hostitlity to FloNight appearing on the review as an editor.

(I have tried to avoid mentioning the subject matter of AT because its a complex subject and will have everybody falling of their chairs in a deep sleep, so please ignore this if your eyelids are drooping already, but in relation to this thing about mixing science and pseudoscience, the article compared the two in an attempt to highlight the differences. Mattisse said this was confusing. I therefore hugely reduced and simplified the mainstream points and put them in two short sections titled "contrasting mainstream position on...." or similar. This was completely ignored by Mattisse. Interestingly the reviewer didn't find the comparisons between science and pseudoscience confusing at all. For those of you still awake the article is there to read.) (Given mattisse raises this, apart from me and Mattisse, delisting was supported by GeometryGuy, Malleous Fatuorum and Montanabw. It was not supported by DanaBoomer, JulianColton and JeanMercer)

(I'm also puzzled as to why Mattisse has very recently started calling me "she")

Evidence presented by Casliber
Much of my evidence I placed in various sections of the Requests for comment/Mattisse 3 and since then I have had little interaction with her. However, I have witnessed the display at the Buckingham Palace FAR and overseen ongoing disputes elsewhere. Several editors above such as Geometryguy, Tex and others have summed up her behaviour well.

Yes Mattisse is a hardworking and dedicated reviewer, but these periods of productivity are punctuated by episodes where she becomes stressed and regresses, and manifests some fairly difficult behaviour. Both Karanacs above and Durova here have shown how she devolves into a black/white thinking where everyone is a friend or enemy. She also readily sees malign motives in others and conspiracies. Some are bizarre to the point (many listed at this section fall in this category) where it is unclear whether she is consciously lying or overwhelmed. The POINTy FAR nominations and ignoring her previous promises to not edit at FAC seem to indicate a conscious disregard or lack of empathy for others. Each of these behaviours preclude collaborative editing which is a necessity in these areas of wikipedia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Mattisse's comment on third RFC and MDD FAC
All I can say is read the timeline of it, or better still the history of the FAC, and Mattisse's subsequent repeated comments about who initiated ill-will. I will restate - Mattisse did contribute alot of useful material but this was mixed with several weeks' worth of vitriol which I could have done without. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Moni3
My first interaction with Mattisse was on the Everglades talk page in May of 2008. It was very brief and amicable.

Mattisse is helpful to editors new to FAC / DYK / GA
I think the evidence presented on this page shows that Mattisse is very helpful to editors who are new and confused by the nomination processes for DYK, GA, and FAC. She is nurturing and encouraging.

Mattisse understands more confident editors as rejecting her
However, when Mattisse encounters editors who are more confident in their grasp of article content, editing, copy editing, writing, and Wiki policy, she no longer is helpful.

I'm going to provide evidence to my limited interactions with Mattisse, but I believe my observations can be applied to the more recent discussions of The Age of Reason, the GAR for Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology, and the FAR for Buckingham Palace.

After participating in a few discussions on the FAC talk page with Mattisse, my second memorable encounter with her was the FAC for Harvey Milk. Let me just say that our banter in this article is so negligible compared to other FACs that it's hardly worth mentioning. She suggested some changes. I had to ask some clarification because I did not understand what she wanted done. I made some changes, reported back, and she responded saying that she was ok with it, but then with exasperation. I was subsequently puzzled at her reaction.

I should state, and perhaps suggest as a proposal, that discussions at FAC—both in individual article assessment and the talk page of the project—often take on a prolonged nature where complex ideas are traded and discussed. It is very rare that the discussion takes on an antagonistic tone, but those discussions may be becoming more frequent. It is my impression, however, that any editor can make suggestions during an FAC to improve the article. The nominator can choose to implement the changes or explain to the suggester why it is not a good idea. I have, for the most part, been very impressed with the respect and professionalism of editors at FAC. Most are genuinely interested in doing the best by their articles as they can.

My interactions with Mattisse were, by my own desire, limited following the FAC for Major Depressive Disorder. I do not like the way she has maligned SandyGeorgia, but SG can take care of herself. I was similarly displeased with a half-hearted attempt to discredit Ealdgyth on the FAC talk page. I don't think anyone who frequents FAC will say it is a perfect system, but for certain the wrong way to fix its imperfections is to suggest the volunteers who work there have ulterior motives or are incompetent. A good example of this is the reviews GrahamColm did. For kicks, I believe, Graham posted on SG's talk page that he had performed 200 reviews for FAC. That's quite admirable. What motivated her to do this, I don't know, but Mattisse that complained of quid pro quo, suggesting Graham was giving away favorable reviews. I don't understand what her complaint with SandyGeorgia is, but her tendency to attribute some kind of guilt to those who frequent SG's talk page borders on trollish.

For the record, I have defended Mattisse's dissenting voice when it was suggested that she be topic banned from FAC and FAR. I think criticism is healthy and it silencing it is dangerous. However, I also believe Mattisse's criticism loses its effectiveness when delivered in such a manner that it appears she is throwing feces at multiple targets in the hope that something will stick. She is undermining her own voice and her reputation is preceding her commentary. For my own peace of mind, I tend to ignore Mattisse. If she appeared at an FAC I nominated and proceeded to make suggestions, unfortunately, I would think long and hard about taking them. If she upgraded her criticism, I think, again unfortunately, I would not be remiss in branding her a troll and carrying on the FAC without following what might be good suggestions.

Evidence presented by Mattisse
I was told by an Arbibratrator that it was fine if I had a spokesperson. However, I understand from the comments made against me that it is not all right, and that this is being held against me. I confess I stopped reading this Arbitration on Saturday, since I have not heard from my spokesperson since then. Therefore I will try to do my best.

Evidence regarding Cyborg Ninja
Cyborg Ninja interjected herself in the dispute with User:Blueboar over the Caisson (Asian architecture) article   into which an article I had written Zaojing  had been merged without discussion. (Long after, redirected Zaojing to another article but was too demoralized to finish it). Since User:Blueboar regularly deletes his page I have not looked for his responses.
 * User:Cyborg Ninja was obsessed with me and involved User:Blueboar. See these diffs of samples Cyborg Ninjas comments about me:
 * Here she says all my Supreme Court articles are copyvios, among other things.
 * Here she takes the side of User:PalaceGuard008, author and merger, although she admits knowing nothing of subjec
 * To LessHeard about the "situation" with Mattisse" Unfortunately, I think you're jumping to conclusions. Please tell me how exactly I am committing what you accused me of on my talk page. Is talking about a user to specific people on their talk page against the rules? Do you believe these are spontaneous people? I said it in the AN/I: I didn't want to go into further detail at the moment, but you give me little choice...IvoShandor is one of the users I contacted. Outside of Dreamafter, who I was talking to for commentary on what to do about the situation with Mattisse, I only contacted people who had similar problems with the user like IvoShandor there, to ask them if they're run into any other problems, or what they think should be done. Even if other administrators declare that I shouldn't contact other users about this user, I will still investigate it further as I have the past few days because I don't want to see other users mistreating, threatening, manipulating, etc, others, and get away with it just because there are some people who aren't willing to do their homework before handing out warnings.
 * To AN/I defending her attacks against me
 * Answer comment from LessHeard vanU about Cyborg Ninja stalking me.
 * LessHeard vanU warns Cyborg Ninja to leave Mattisse alone.
 * Ninja Cyborg repeats her accusations against me to another editor.
 * I complain about what happened in the Caisson (Asian architecture) article.
 * Cyborg Ninja enters the Caisson (Asian architecture) controversy. ==
 * Cyborg Ninja starts a formal mediation for Caisson (Asian architecture) *Cyborg Ninja posts on AN/I in defense of Blueboar ,
 * Cyborg Ninja's request for mediation for the Caisson article is turned down.
 * Sample of Cyborg Ninja's posts to Blueboar
 * Sample of Cyborg Ninja's continued post to LessHeard vanU
 * More posts to AN/I about Mattisse and the Caisson article
 * Cyborg Ninja blocked by LessHeard vanU
 * Cyborg Ninja posts to AN/I that LessHeard vanU blocked Mattisse I was blocked without warning
 * Cybory Ninja post to An/I a review of my talk page and defends Blueboar and says that Mattisse is blocked as a consequence.More posts to AN/I about Mattisse and defending Blueboar
 * More AN/I post about Mattisse and defending Blueboar
 * Cyborg Ninja posts to Caison article talk page
 * Many posts to village pump and AN/I questioning (without naming) Mattisse's mental stability:
 * Contacts PalaceGuard008 about Caisson (Asian architecture) article and PalaceGuard thanks her for the "heads up". &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was blocked with no warning by LessHeard

Evidence that Fainities' opinion is based on three incidents

 * I brought her article Attachment therapy to GAR (Good article reassessment/Attachment therapy/1) because I had deep ethical concerns that the article should not appear as is was on Wikipedia. See Talk:Attachment therapy/GA1. These concerns are born out by the comments of other reviewers in the GAR. Also examine the condition of the article at the time of the promotion. which confuses medical evidence with pseudoscience. Delisting the article was specifically supported by User:Malleus Fatuorum. as well as others, including User:Geometry guy  and User:Montanabw (who was specifically solicited by the original GA reviewer User:Dana boomer to give an opinion), while  User:Jean Mercer pointed out serious problems with the article.
 * Citing the fact that User:Casliber used the Good article reassessment/Attachment therapy/1 in his RFC against me only goes to his bad faith, as after GAR gave time to improve the article, the opinion was that the GAR should close as delist article because of its many problems.


 * Fainities resents that I brought the Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology article to GAR but the discussion is continuing actively there and my concerns were not dismissed. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1
 * As far as the Reactive attachment disorder,(Featured article candidates/Reactive attachment disorder) that was the first such article I had reviewed and had not participated in FACs. I was asked to review it by User:SandyGeorgia and would not have reviewed it otherwise. I apologize if I made errors. I voiced my preference that diagnostic terms be used correctly, which apparently was not a popular view. I am just one voice. That is not a reason to hold a grudge for a year.
 * Consequently, Fainities joins every negative effort against me, even though User:Wehwalt gave us both credit in his successful nominatation of Rudolf Wolters for FAC.
 * I ask Fainities to provide evidence of one other editor, besides those complaining in this RFC that I treated "rudely" in an FAC, GAR, or FAR. Please provide evidence of even one editor I have "driven off". I have helped many editors who I did not know get their articles through FAC by doing massive copy editing. Please see User:Mattisse/Contributions/FA for some examples. This does not count the articles I routinely copy edited; I used to go through most of the articles on the FAC list and copy edit them, even if I did not comment before the RFC against me.
 * I am truly sorry that Fainities feels the way she does, but I cannot refrain from trying to protect Wikipedia from misleading articles or vote my conscience, even if it turns out I am wrong. I think knee-jerk support of everything against me is wrong. Other than these three incidents, I have done nothing personally to her. She supports the comments of the FAC regulars at every opportunity.
 * I do sincerely regret that my actions were taken so personally, as they were not meant to be. I am passionate about certain topics, one of them being psychology-related articles. I do try not to edit them, but once in a while I find myself doing so and then my perfectionism and rigid training come to the fore.

Evidence regarding Featured article review/Buckingham Palace

 * Please read the entire Featured article review/Buckingham Palace to which I added examples in response to complaints. I also finally added bolding and FAR procedure explanations in the face of so much opposition. Giano also attacked me on his talk page multiple times.
 * I originally I tried to deal with on the article talk page to no avail. eg and tried to defend myself against personal attacks,, and tried to improve article eg
 * Rister defends the article as it is eg. and is tolerant of Giano II's personal attacks on me. eg.
 * Giano II blanks the article page to shown me that I have no business there to try to improve the article. Rister reverts his page blanking, thereby tolerating Giano's behavior.
 * Giano II was not warned for his personal attacks.

Evidence showing that I have been blocked and threatened to be blocked without warning

 * LessHeard blocked me without warning over Cyborg Ninja.
 * User:Dweller said he could have blocked me without warning over a joke on my talk page.
 * Tznkai blocked me indefinitely on May 6, 2009 without warning. See blocked
 * As User:SilkTork points out somewhere on these pages, User:Jennavecia has several times used the word "block" in her messages to me, making it clear that blocking was on her mind.
 * Please see evidence below, presented by User:Tznkai, the admin who blocked me indefinitely without warning, as an example of why I live in fear of arbitrary admin behavior.  I have never heard of this admin and he suddenly reverts my talk page without contacting me or making any attempt to explain or educate me as to his reasoning, or even to explain that he is an admin.

No evidence of Wikihounding by Mattisse

 * The AN/I thread immediately brought up: Prior requests for comment on this user Requests for comment/Mattisse, Requests for comment/Mattisse 2, Requests for comment/Mattisse 3 to inflame the thread and preclude a rational discussion of the facts. I have never been accused of wikihounding previously.
 * I did not wikihound or intentionally disrupt articles by User:Awadewit. I have always supported User:Awadewit on WT:FAC and DYK pages.I responded to an RFC on a Thomas Paine article, having no idea that it was by Awadewit or that she had a particular investment in a point of view regarding it. Coincidently, I saw an article on Scientology that had just past GAN that I thought needed work before it should pass. In the past I was encouraged by Malleus to put Attachment therapy up for GAR, so I decided to do so here.
 * Thus twice in my three years at Wikipedia, I did something that could be considered a criticism of Awadewit, although not knowing they were her articles. I do not think that is wikihounding. I think I was hounded and harassed by the ANI thread that instantly resulted and the opening of this Arbitration declaring open season on me.

Mattisse does not bear grudges
I have made peace with LessHeard, Redthoreau and others. I tried to make peace with User:Dineshkannambadi on his talk page but he rebuffed me. I do not regularly support petitions, RFCs, AN/I threads against specific editors. I rarely comment on these sorts of things at all. I become upset when editors repeatedly post unsolicited advice on my talk page lecturing me on my behavior without taking the time to try to understand my side. Their attitude is often overbearing. Usually they are being protective of another editor and have no interest in my point of view. I do not like those people, but I do not seek them out to repeatedly join in attempts to put them down.

Durova's Evidence on the Featured article review/Buckingham Palace

 * Durova admits that she did not arrive until six weeks into the FAR, well after the abuse I receive on the FAR as well as the Buckingham Palace talk page and on Giano II's own page.
 * Durova claims " Mattisse devotes more energy to the putative motivations of other editors" suggesting that I offered no constructive suggestions. Please see the list at the beginning of the FAR as well as my suggestions on the article talk page. Also, I was reverted by User:Risker for placing a fact tag on the article.
 * Therefore, it is true that I dismissed her comments since she did not seem to have followed the facts. Casliber said when the FAR opened in January that he would help fix it up. In March he was talking about going to the library for some books. I encouraged that, hoping that he would feel obliged to follow through and fix the article.
 * The article would never pass FAC by today's standards. See comment by User:YellowAssessmentMonkey: I was stupid enough to believe that the FAC standards applied to them also. A huge mistake by me. I didn't know about the lower bar for old articles.
 * When I am undergoing a bad experience where all others, including Durova, seem to be assuming the worst about me, if someone post a Good faith is infecious message on my page, I consider empty of meaning, like one of those "Smile" tags, in other words,  a "vacuous observation", as Geometry guy said of User:Awadewit's comment that plot summaries are OR: It is certainly not helpful, but rather the opposite.

Evidence that Durova allegations that I tried to ruin her reputation at DYK by being the primary opposition to her suggestion are unwarranted

 * If you look the entire DYK thread   and note that the posting goes on beyond the original heading, and beyond "Arbitrary section break", "Premature", and "An idea", none of the last three heading did I contributed to. I am not the primary contributor to the whole thread. It did not peter out after I stopped contributing to it. My concerns were as a DYK hook reviewer as felt that her suggestions would make a difficult job more difficult. It had nothing to do with who made the suggestion.  She is very much personalizing and mischaracterising my role in the  thread.
 * I have no idea what the references to Uncle Tom means as that article already has a DYK so it would not be eligible anyway. In general, the DYK editors were against changing the rules.
 * I do not understand the point she is making in her Evidence regarding my views in this DYK thread

Other allegations by Durova

 * Unfortunately, I cannot relate to much of what User:Durova alleges. I do not know her history, or her prior arbitrations. She assumes that I do. I know nothing about Scientology, have only seen two articles, the one Geometry guy took over so that I failed it to get out of the way and the current Wikipedia:Peer review/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/archive1. I did not know Durova was Cirt's mentor, or even that Cirt had a mentor, and I do not know the history of that. I do not know of any history she has with Giano II. I know very little about Durova, although she  assumes that I do. Therefore, much of what she alleges does not make sense. I do not know what she means by my vandalism. I have never intentionally vandalized. Nor do I know what to make of her refactoring offer.
 * I am surprised that she is so involved in this, as frankly I have not paid much attention to her or her activities. I have never been able to relate to what she says, and don't know what she means most of the time. I would prefer that she not contact me on my talk page.
 * I am surprised that she accused me of WP:COPYVIO as User:Geometry guy uses that same link in Wikipedia:Peer review/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/archive1 to explain how a huge misunderstanding occurred. Perhaps if that link had been looked at previously, much of the misunderstanding could have be avoided by an open minded examination of my point of view, instead of an immediate opening of an AN/I thread. I have never been accused of WP:COPYVIO previously.
 * I believe that the one instance of WP:COPYVIO described above does not warrant being blocked, banned, or paroled. There is no evidence that I chronically WP:HOUND. Because coincidentally I responded to an RFC on an article that I did not know was Awedewat's article and also put up another article belonging to Awedewat in the span of 17 hours does not justify WP:HOUND. I believe this is an extreme misinterpretation of the facts.
 * I have not been involved in Arbitrations previously to any extent. I did enter evidence in the arbitration regarding User:Zeraeph. I believe that is the only one that I have entered evidence. I do not read them or keep up with them. I have not read any that involved User:Durova. Therefore, I do not know to what she refers.
 * "Anyone who has a passing familiarity with Requests for arbitration/Durova would be hard pressed to refrain from laughter. Mattisse herself could not be completely out of the loop because she had mentioned Giano's name to me six weeks earlier and I had replied Well, Giano and I disagree more often than we agree. Let's leave it at that."
 * I have not read that and did not know about it until now. I did not know what her reference to Giano meant.


 * "Mattisse doesn't attempt to account for the fact that I interacted with Cirt for nearly a year and through a full arbitration case on that topic before I began to mentor him, nor that my evidence to a subsequent arbitration case makes it very clear that at one point I nearly proposed a topic ban on him."
 * I did not know any of this so I would not attempt to account for it.


 * "Until this evidence presentation was well underway the attempt to muster good faith explanations for Mattisse's actions had been leading toward areas in which I profess zero expertise: rationalization, confabulation, etc. One set of actions precludes them all. The chances approach zero that a Wikipedian of over 66,000 edits would accidentally vandalize the section header to conceal her own sanctions discussion. and then accidentally flood the concealed discussion with irrelevant commentary. I submit to the Committee that Mattisse took those actions deliberately in order to prevent the proposal's majority support from achieving consensus, and as proof of that Mattisse managed to locate and post to the concealed section twice[40] more[41] before Moni3 corrected the header formatting.[42] Please review the aspersions Mattisse was casting upon the motives and reputations of various experienced editors in light of her vandalism: this is evidence of calculated intent."
 * Well, I am not nearly that sophisticated or proficient as to accomplish this intentionally. Plus why would I? I have never intentionally vandalized anything. I am not even sure what I am being accused of doing here.
 * I did not vandalize a page intentionally. I would not do that and I don't know how to, in any event. All my many errors are unintentional.


 * Requests for comment/Mattisse 3 was "delisted due to inactivity".
 * I hope I have addressed Durova's accusations. I find them far fetched.

Evidence regarding the two previous requests for comment regarding Mattisse

 * Requests for comment/Mattisse was brought by User:Hanuman Das and User:999 and User:Ekajati originally. All three have since turned out to be sockpuppets. The outside view, endorsed by all 14 outside responders was I beleive it is an RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary.
 * Requests for comment/Mattisse 2 was brought by User:Cyborg Ninja and User:Malik Shabazz and was not supported.
 * User:Malik Shabazz and I are now on good terms.
 * Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati is still an ongoing issue. Please see John Carters request to Yellow Monkey and User:YellowAssessmentMonkey's reply "Oh, the arb Vassyana knows about it, I gave him a rundown on it a few weeks ago. He blocked more socks of  sure I can answer any questions as desired."

Evidence that Requests for comment/Mattisse 3 was brought in bad faith

 * Under causes of concern were sockpuppet charges that were over and done with as of September 2006 and had alread been aired in other venues including the first two RFCs against me.
 * Examples
 * The Good article reassessment/Attachment therapy/1 was used as evidence against me, when I brought the GAR out of conscience and did nothing wrong and attempted to be helpful.
 * I was accused of a racist attack on a editor for whom I had copy edited five articles to FAC Rashtrakuta Dynasty, Hoysala architecture, Hoysala Empire, Vijayanagara Empire, Western Chalukya Empire. My charge was that a particular ethnic view was given undue weight. My charge of bias was supported by another editor User:Fowler&fowler See and at Featured article candidates/Kannada literature/archive1 among other places.
 * In Allegation Two - Cause for concern - The prejudicial comments of User:FayssalF Mattisse again! at an AN/I complaint brought by User:Zeraeph (just before she was banned) were used against me, although he admitted he knew nothing about me except the many AN/I mentions and such. As i said above Mattisse, it is about the frequency of reports about you from different users. Considering that I was mentioned at AN/I as many as five times a day by the various sockpuppets, others such Cyborg Ninji, User:Zeraeph etc. this was most unfair. I was unable to receive help.
 * Even SandyGeorgia berated User:FayssalF for his comments about me and voted against him for Arbitrator based on them. Her reasons were specifically these comments:
 * SandyGeorgia provided this link She said " 59. ArbCom members should be well informed before passing judgment on an editor seeking help in a difficult situation, and when they opine on an issue, they should strive to remember what it's like "out there" dealing with difficult editors and to be very well informed before lodging opinions." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 11 December 2007 UTC)Retrieved from
 * Note that User:Zeraeph voted for User:FayssalF based on his AN/I comments.


 * The Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1 was justified and was delisted despite the work put into it. If you look at the contribution stats, you will see that Zleitzen, Polaris999 and I worked hard on the article to make it NPOV, until Redthoreau unilaterally took it over, with Coppertwig defending his edits. I did not single-handedly derail the fix-up and it is misrepresentative to imply I did. See Jbmurray's last remarks In any event, User:Redthoreau and I are now on good terms.
 * The many complaints about the Major depressive disorder article. I was a major contributor to that article, even though I was treated with disrespect during the FAC See edit counts
 * Petty complaints: "Mattisse copyedits articles at FAC, but often introduces typographical and grammatical errors (that remain uncorrected until others fix them), some samples:" follow are samples from Major depressive disorder. Is this RFC material?
 * It is petty to put a "time line" of my every comment/suggestions to fix the article, especially as many of my comments were either disregarded, answered rudely, or threaded in such a way that the topic was changed. If you want I will find diffs that are better examples for these incidents. Here is a comment made by  my defender User:Snowmanradio.
 * However I don't know how to find the original Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder (this is not it) before the restart Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder/restart. I need the original FAR for the most egregious examples. Please show me how.


 * A legitimate question I asked User:Risker when she was running for ArbCom, asking why she reverted a fact tag on Buckingham Palace is given as an example of an "odd exchange" and RFC material. Is it true I should not ask such questions of a person running for ArbCom?
 * "Giano has hard time allowing others to edit Buckingham Palace" The preceding is given as evidence of badness of mine, but if you look at it you will see I am following a similar comment by Malleus.
 * Because I had the nerve to say that "Cheers" is an irritating sign off, especially when saying something that is not pleasant, and I suggest that as an Arbitrator, should he be elected, that he discontinue it for Arbitration comments, that counts as RFC material.
 * The statement by User:Dweller that he should have blocked me without warning was made in a long conversation on my talk page and acknowledged by Casliber with the edit summary of (hahaha), so he clearly recognized it has a joke. He did not have to post it on a talk page where Dweller would see it and want to block me. A thread on AN/I confirmed this and concluded it was not a blockable statement. Yet this is in the RFC despite the AN/I finding that the comment was a joke and the warning was posted 8 hours after the comment. See Calesber directly acknowledged it was a joke.
 * That (Talk:Attachment therapy/GA1, Good article reassessment/Attachment therapy/1) was presented as a reason for an RFC. Since my initial concerns were upheld and the article was delisted as a Good Article, this at most represents a difference in opinion and not a subject for RFC.
 * Note: Delisting the article was specifically supported by User:Malleus Fatuorum. as well as others, including User:Geometry guy.


 * There is a link to an edit I made in May 2006, 20 days after I started editing, hardly a good faith attempt to help me improve my behavior. I maintain this whole RFC was so laced with bad faith that it virtually guaranteed that I would not benefit from it.
 * User:Casliber is consistently patronizing to me, starting comments with "Erm" and in other ways being subtlety patronizing and detrogatory. I would give a diff but the only one I could find off hand was in Riskers User talk:Risker/Archive 5 and it was not possible to get a diff. I find his treatment of me offensive. I tried to explain why the "Cheers" signature was offensive, but he ended up making fun of me and adding it to the RFC. It is not possible to communicate seriously with him about my feelings. The RFC he created is a gragbag of junk. Perhaps if he had truly tried to communicate with me, and been helpful in the RFC examples, I could have taken it seriously. As it is, it just seemed like a pile on to pay me back for trying to be helpful on the Major depressive disorder. I guess he felt I had no right.
 * Most of my comments to Major depressive disorder were either ignored, factered into a meaningless thread like "why italic here", or the reply was preceded with "Bah", "Erm", "Yawn" or some other dismissive word.
 * The fact I used all caps in the edit notes in the body of the article was put in the RFC as something bad, while other editors said on the talk page that they liked the all caps because it was easier to identify what needed fixing.
 * If you read through my responses to the charges in the RFC, you will find that a good proportion of them are false or misrepresented. I would have prefered to spend time on admitting my faults than to have to round up evidence to refute the slew of misleading charges. The tone of the RFC was not helpful but reeked of ugliness and "pile on".

Evidence regarding my contribuions

 * These are my most edited pages since May 6, 2006: per en.WikiChecker/user beta
 * Template talk:Did you know 1,818
 * User talk:Mattisse 1,592
 * Fidel Castro 783
 * User talk:Dineshkannambadi 703
 * Good article nominations 502
 * User:Mattisse 442
 * Major depressive disorder 382
 * Frank Zappa 295
 * Vijayanagara Empire 287
 * Talk:Che Guevara 265
 * User talk:BostonMA 247
 * Che Guevara 244
 * Indian rock-cut architecture 242
 * Rashtrakuta Dynasty 222
 * Talk:Major depressive disorder 219
 * Wikipedia talk:Did you know 198
 * Hoysala Empire 196
 * Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder/restart 191
 * User talk:Malleus Fatuorum 178


 * Recent Medals since Requests for comment/Mattisse 3 became essentially inactive - for DYK and GA work. (See User:Mattisse)
 * The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar - "Not only for reviewing and patiently waiting for improvements on Seeing Sounds, but for your hard work in general in WP:GAN. Thank you for the help, hard work and determination; it is deeply appreciated. DiverseMentality 04:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)"
 * The Main Page Barnstar - "Matisse, I award you this barnstar for reviewing so many DYK hook suggestions this week. After looking at the current T:TDYK page, I counted 168 edits have your name attached to them. Whether that's a record or not, your diligence is duly noted. Rosiestep (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)"
 * The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar - "For tirelessly reviewing nominations at "Did You Know" and making an invaluable contribution to the workings of the Main Page. BencherliteTalk 23:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)"
 * DYK Medal - "For tireless verifying of hooks at Template talk:Did you know, I hereby award you the DYK contributors medal for outstanding contributions to the running of the DYK project. Congratulations! Gatoclass (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)"
 * The Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar - In addition to your helpful reviews of "my" articles, you're one of 3 reviewers whose approach encouraged me to submit more articles for GA review and to review articles myself. This award is long overdue, it's taken me a while to find the right Barnstar. --Philcha (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)"
 * The DYK Medal - "For going beyond verification of hooks by copyediting, fixing, and adjusting nominated articles. Your work is appreciated. Synergy 02:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)"

Acknowledging my hard work
Although numerous editors who regularly comment on FAC and WT:FAC etc. are acknowledging my work in this arbitration, they have not done so outside a RFC or an arbitration. In the daily grind of work on wikipedia, my compliments and recognitions come from other editors, those not involved in presenting evidence against me here. Therefore, I truly am surprised to learn that my work is valued and held in high esteem. I thank all for letting me know that.

My mistakes

 * My panic and defensiveness I admit that I easily panic and become defensive. After nine months of essentially no defense while attacked constantly by the sock puppets and brought constantly to AN/I, had two unfounded RFCs, had my articles vandalized and merged without discussion with others, I have become suspicious. It is very hard for me to trust some editors.
 * Impulsive withdrawals I admit that I had impulsively stated that I will refrain from posting in certain arenas such as GA, and then after withdrawing from that arena I resume my work there when it becomes clear that there are  editors who want me to do so. I regarded such withdrawals as voluntary so I did not see resuming as breaking a "pledge". However,  I agree that this can be seen as reneging on a "pledge". I will take care in the future to attempt to refrain from such impulsive remarks. I apologize to those who feel that I broke a "pledge". If there is an area of wikipedia where I should not participate, hopefully this arbitration will make that clear.  I deeply regret that my impulsive withdrawals are seen as a pattern and apologize.
 * Plague/Torment post I regret my Plague/Torment post. In a way that was meant as a joke, and in a way it was a cry of anguish, as those are editors who have, from my point of view, repeatedly interjected themselves into my affairs without any attempt to understand my point of view. I will make a point of never posting on the pages of others whom are "watched" by such as FloNight. I do not think editors should comment out of favoritism to particular editors when they do not know the facts. I feel vulnerable to "pile ons". However, although I considered it merely a flippant expression of my frustration at the time,  I see now that Plague/Torment post was a huge error in judgment. I deeply regret it.
 * Distrust I do not trust the FAC editors and their affiliates as they always hang together and comment as one voice. Those include User:Karanacs, User:Maralia, User:Moni3, User:Fainites, User:Casliber primarily. There were others who used to "pile on" but have ceased to do so. Hopefully, I can work through these negative feelings toward these editors.
 * Intolerance I confess that I consider the smoozing on SandyGeorgia's talk page as unprofessional. That is my prejudice that it seems like a quid pro quo. I prefer the more professional manner of User:Geometry guy. That is me and my problem that I am uncomfortable with smoozing, I realize, as much appears to be accomplished that way. I am too straitlaced and unbending about the encyclopedia. So I do not compromise easily. That intolerances is a fault of mine.
 * Fair FAC editors I am especially grateful and thankful to User:Gimmetrow, who made it clear to me he did not hold me responsible for the Brenda Song fiasco, User:Eubulides who took my comments on Water fluoridation and others in good faith and good spirit, and User:Ottava Rima who remained fair and open minded, dispite my criticisms of the Lucy articles. And to User:Ceoil who has asked me to copy edit the next version. These editors could have follow the crowd of FAC editors but chose to be fair instead. I am eternally beholden to these editors as they allow me a shred of faith. I am also thankful that User:SandyGeorgia did invite me back to FAC and has also chosen to remain disengaged in the present fray. I am very sorry for untoward comments regarding SandyGeorgia. I unfortunately saw her comments and her refusal to accord me any recognition for all the work I was doing for FAC as a slight. Hence my comment about "fav Calisber" as I had done more on that article than he had, but his work was recognized; mine never was.
 * Apology I am sorry that my feelings of being slighted led me to make comments that I am not proud of and cannot defend, especially regarding SandyGeorgia. It is true I received plenty of recognition from others. I should not have personalized SandyGeorgia's lack of recognition so much. I guess it made me very aware that I was not in the "FAC editors" circle.
 * My behavior when frustrated I regret that I became so very frustrated. My threats to leave editing FAC, GA etc. (See "Impulsive withdrawals" above) were based on impulse and a feeling of exclusion. Once I received support from others and realized that the desire to get rid of me was not universal, I retracted my withdrawals. I regret any impulsive comments that hurt others, and apologize for them. I believe I am more aware now and will do better in the future.
 * Lack of experience Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is my only online experience, other than email. I have never posted anywhere before. I do not know what most of the initials that everyone uses mean, like WRT. I did not know what LOL meant until here. I just figured out a few days ago what WT means. So if my manner seems strange, it is that I am a fish out of water in even trying to deal with Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikipedia is not for people like me and it is an uphill battle for me to try to fit in.
 * Welcome mentors There are many editors I have good relationships with, whose articles I edit, or of whom I ask advice. Additionally, I would welcome a mentor or mentors. I find some editors inflammatory and unhelpful. If there is a way to prevent these editors from posting on my page with their advice, it would help me keep my composure. The editors I find unhelpful include User:Durova, User:Risker, User:Lar, User:FloNight, User:Casliber User:Karanacs, User:Maralia, User:Moni3. There are others, but lately they have desisted. I would prefer to have some editors designated to filter the comments of unhelpful editors and enable me to deal with them appropriately. I need a some help against what I perceive as antagonism and disrespect, as I do not handle it well alone.

Questions from Mattisse

 * Is there any evidence that I have disrupted DYK, GA, GAR, FAR, or FAC since the Requests for comment/Mattisse 3 was closed due to inactivity?


 * Is this arbitration a relitigation of the last RFC against me?


 * Is the Arbitration Committee persuaded that Talk:Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1 plus my comments at the Talk:The_Age_of_Reason constitute WP:COPYVIO, or WP:WIKIHOUNDING? (I did not restore the GAR template, so someone else did and therefore must have agreed with it.)


 * I acknowledge that composing the Plague/Torment list was extremely poor judgment, and apologize for the disruption it caused. I felt ganged up on due to the AN/I thread and associated involvement of editors over the GAR, though that is no excuse. However, it was a onetime incident and will never reoccur. Will the Arbitration Committee accept that I learned from this incident?


 * I made one ill considered comment at the Featured article review/Restoration comedy which I crossed out and withdrew. The FAR passed. It is at least plausible that my comment prevented the "pile on" that the FAR for Buckingham Palace experienced. And that was the intent of the comment in the first place: to give the FAR a chance to be straight forward without the nominator being attacked further, as he already experience one attack that would have set the tone for a "pile on". I wanted to prevent that editor from having to go through what I did. Can the Arbitration Committe accept that this was my motivation, even it I should have just stayed out of it? I felt sick that an innocent editor would go through that, and I thought predicting it might forstall it.


 * Yes, I finished commenting on the Buckingham Palace FAR, but there my goal was to prod the other editors into improving the article beyond the improvements I was able to make to the article. Again, can the Arbitration Committee aceept that this was my motivation, although they may not agree with my method?


 * I have not harmed or vandalized an article. None of the complaints have anything to do with my article editing, which if you at my stats, is almost all of what I do, plus DYK and GA (which I had stopped for now because of the arbitration.)  My problems since the last RFC on me involve only a few editor and their defenders. My behavior does not reach the level or frequency of some other editors whose rudeness it tolerated. My disagreements are largely over content. I do not call other editors names and such. Such models should not be allowed if it does not apply to all.


 * If I had one or more editors to whom I could go, someone who I felt would protect me against such ganging up, that avenue would give me a recourse so that I would not feel so desperate, and if I were wrong, I could be told. I would not feel so tormented as to post the extremely ill consider Plague/Torment list. I would have other recourse than to always feel victimize by these editors and defenders. Perhaps more than one editor/mentor, so that no one editor would feel unduly burdened. I think this would take care of the problem, unless there is other, recent evidence of my misbehavior. Almost all of the evidence has been brought up previously in the last RFC. I showed that I was not the main contributor to the DYK thread that Durova felt was an attempt to ruin her reputation. I showed Jennavecia that I was in fear of being blocked without warning. Does the Arbitration Committee accept my evidence.


 * I was asked to give further opinion at Talk:The Age of Reason. I do not give my opinion that often on articles. I have rarely commented at FAC in the RFC, and my comments are increasingly rare. Is this allowed?


 * The last RFC on me ended without a definitive conclusion. I don't think much of my ill behavior was supported by the RFC, much of it was old stuff from the previous discredited RFCs, it was not clear if I was supposed to refrain from all FAC, FAR, GAN, GA, DYK, GAR and if this was forever, for a few weeks or what. Therefore, I backed off for a few weeks, completed what I was in the middle of, and then resumed areas that I seemed to have no trouble in. Is it not fair to consider that this is the way I interpreted the conclusion? Does the Arbitration Committee not feel my behavior has improved?


 * It seems to me that the question is the recent GAR, charges of wikihounding, and the Plague/Torment list. Is there evidence that the serious, recent issues include more? I believe on the one time Plague/Torment list was wrong. Does the Arbitration Committee disagree?


 * I seems like the most avid critics of my behavior are Durova, Jennavecia, and Fanities, editors with whom I have had little interaction overall. The issues brought forth by Durova and Jennavecia involve the  GAR Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1,  an article by Awadewit, and passed as a good article by Fainities. Since this is in essence one incident, and  there are other editors who support the GAR which is still actively ongoing, it this a reason to ban/block me from Wikipedia?

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by Tznkai
Adapted from my statement.

Mattisse displays a battleground mentality
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.

Concerning my block of Mattisse
On May 6 I blocked Mattisse indefinitely for treating Wikipedia as a battleground even after the case had been filed, continuing to add to the "plague" thread on her user talk. I believed then for the block to be an essentially routine matter, posting notification on WP:RFAR, and User talk:Mattisse. Even after making my reasoning more clear, several other editors objected to the block on reasonable grounds so I unblocked 26 minutes later. The above, along with my original statement, encapsulates my entire interaction with Mattisse. I reiterate my contention that Mattisse has treated Wikipedia like a battleground for her personal conflicts, and should be shown the door.

Evidence presented by Maralia
Mattisse has done excellent work at FAC. She has also contributed a lot of drama, which led to the recent RFC. It has since become abundantly clear that Mattisse disputes the RFC in its entirety: In the interest of avoiding pile-on at the RFC, I did not contribute to the diffs posted there, and in fact commented only twice. Unfortunately, it seems Mattisse will persist in disregarding concerns about her behavior, and nothing short of official sanctions will persuade her to take notice. Consequently, I offer my observations from August 2008 onward, when I first noticed problems at FAC. I have attempted to limit evidence to that directly related to ongoing behavior that I see as problematic, and to avoid diffs from Mattisse's own talk page, as everyone should have a place to vent.
 * "the RFC that SandyGeorgia and Casliber filed against me" (February)
 * "the accusations of the RFC were based on the Major depressive disorder almost exclusively" (February)
 * "The RFC...had no substance" (April)
 * "SandyGeorgia turned on me and initiated an RFC against me, at which I received mostly support because of the lack of evidence." (April)
 * "Casliber chose to set up a RFC for my behavior in that FAC [MDD], his only contact with me. Fortunately, it was not generally supported by the community" (May)

I reiterate that Mattisse's content work has been outstanding, and I want everyone to feel empowered to express opinions, complaints, and to some extent their own emotions freely—but slander, petulance, and churlishness are not tools for success.

Allegations
From August 2008 through the RFC, Mattisse relentlessly alleged collusion among FAC reviewers. She categorically refused to substantiate these allegations. Several editors, most diplomatic among them probably Karanacs, approached Mattisse about what Karanacs aptly characterized as "tarring all FAC reviewers as essentially immature, mean, ignorant, and led by an evil dictator" (2nd diff previous). Mattisse's response: "There is no incentive for me to change my FAC behavior. I have no respect for FAC....I won't go into why I feel hostility to FAC, but its does not stem from the hostility I receive. I recognize the hostility comes from my attitude, and I am not intimidated by it for the most part." She continued to malign FAC participants as corrupt participants in some scheme to get each others' articles promoted:
 * "You don't notice how the same editors support each other in a quid pro quo? How the articles of certain editors pass with nary a glance?...There is no attempt at fairness. I'll just watch the cabal take over. You are in group, so enjoy it!" (August)
 * "You have to become one of the FAC group if you want to pass a controversial article." (November)
 * "If you are a FAC groupie, that is all you need. Bam! You have your FA." (November)
 * "This is where being a FAC groupie is important. If you are a groupie, the other groupies will rush in and fix the niggling picks, overhwhelming the ones who disagree, and the FAC director will tend to be more tolerant and fix things personally as well as discourage the nonsupporters, and hold the article open longer." (November)
 * "Rather, they show up to "support" (for articles by certain editors), even when they have not scrutinized the article and have no real interest in it." (November)
 * "But, of course, this FAC is sponsored by the FAC foundation." (November)
 * "since this is an FAC Foundation sponsored FAC" (November)
 * "I know about the FAC clique and that the nominator of this article does [all the right things]" (December)

Mattisse has also inferred collusion or other ulterior motives from innocuous exchanges:
 * SandyGeorgia's comment about opposing an old FAC's promotion (December)
 * Risker's holiday greetings (December)
 * An editor's innocent comment about his work reviewing FACs . I informed the maligned party; this led to this exchange at my talk, followed by this thread at SandyGeorgia's talk. (December)
 * My concerned request that a 3rd party point out any evidence of possible collusion at FAC so I could attempt to intervene (April)

Confrontation
Tense situations elicit extreme reactions from Mattisse. Her opinions on everything from the usefulness of admins to the character and motives of other editors, even friends, seem to vacillate wildly at the merest hint of provocation. Her typical reactions effectively derail any continuing discourse:
 * Begging to be banned  (January; there are several more lengthy examples in the RFC)
 * Hyperbolic 'apologies'  (February and April)
 * A longstanding habit of dramatically announcing that she has been driven away from a given process and will never participate there again:
 * "I certainly will never post again at GAR." (October)
 * "I have been driven away from "Oppose" to FAC and will never oppose again" (edit summary) (November)
 * "I now realize that I am unwelcome at GAN and will be doing no more reviews." (January)
 * "I no longer participate in FAC and will not in the future." (February)
 * "Since I will not longer being doing any GA reviews" (February)
 * "I will not review GAs anymore." (February)
 * "SandyGeorgia invited me back to work on FAC, but I will never do work there again" (April)
 * "Therefore, I will accede to their pressure and review no more GAs." (May)

My pleasant interaction with Mattisse
I have interacted with Mattisse for over two years on Wikipedia and my interactions with her have been consistently pleasant. I don't know what this arbitration case is about, nor do I care&mdash;given the time I have available&mdash;to familiarize myself with its details; however, I am puzzled that these RfCs (and other time sinks) relating to Mattisse keep turning up with relentless regularity. Just a little while ago, she was accused of racism in an RfC, when in fact the accuser failed to understand what the issue was about. Please see my post Outside view by Fowler&fowler.

Mattisse's critique of FAC/FAR process
I initially had my doubts about some of Mattisse's views on the FAC/FAR process, however, I now tend to think that here critique is not too far off the mark. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is a cabal of like-minded editors who support each other at FAC, I will say that many seasoned FA authors are submitting articles for FAC review all too easily. In Core versus obscure, I gave three examples of unremarkable stubs, of the variety that many of us can whip up in a couple of hours, that had been submitted for FAC (and one was promoted). That these were written and submitted by experienced hands was all the more shocking, at least to me. The latest example of increasingly obscure content is the series of articles that are being submitted around the Australian cricket team's tour of England in 1948. Apparently, a featured topic is the ultimate goal. However, the articles, Australian cricket team in England in 1948, Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, the last still in FAC review and submitted less than two weeks after the previous once became an FA, are becoming increasingly repetitive. Are we going to be running through all eleven players in the team in such manner? And are we also to expect future articles with titles The thirteenth man and the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (I am assuming Ron Hamence, who never got to play a test match, was the twelfth man), The short leg umpire and the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, The drinks man and the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, The groundsmen and the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, and The nightwatchman the Australian cricket team in England in 1948? All the articles have the same repetitive locutions, such as, "their unprecedented ... won them the sobriquet, "The Invincibles") or words to that effect. Shouldn't some people at FAC (other than just Mattisse) be worrying that something is drastically going wrong?    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.