Jump to content

Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mattisse

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedian filing request:

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:


Questions:

[edit]

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

  • Answer:yes

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

  • Answer: They seem to be out to get me personally. They accused User:Timmy12 of being me and drove him off. They accuse me of being anti-pagan.

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

  • Answer:They have filed numberous reports against me, several Checkusers, a recent RFC and numerous ANI's. I have defended myself some of the time. I filed some complaints and asked questions at the Technical Pump. Here I was stalked and my qestions demeed. Now the Cabal Mediator who was taken off the case is trying to block me. He was on the list above but I removed it as the first several times I tried to file I was sent to his page.

October 18, 2006

October 27, 2006

---What has happened since the original request for an Advocate in November (this is the middle of January now)--

Please, I beg of you that you familarise youself with recent events to avood actions that will increase the severity of the situation. I ask, please. This has been a horrible day, the kind I have been avoiding.

A short summary of events since November:

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

  • Answer:Some tips to avoid these situations besides being afraid to do anything. Maybe some understanding of what is going on and a sense whether there is any hope.

In addition, I am adding that I do not want a deterioration of my situation as a result of Advocacyl It has been going on for five months without help. I have beem doing O.K. (as I have learned to accept the omnipresent ugliness on Wikipedia) but I forsee a worsening of this as of recent of events in the last few days.

Emphatically, I do want discussion and interchange. I do not what a cup of tea while my Advocate "asks around" about me. I am an adult.

Summary:

[edit]

A group of people are protexting a specific group of articles. I blundered accidently into some of them when I was wikifying backlogs and tagged one for ADF. That is how it began in August. A group of people are protextion specific articles that spam Wikipedia. Specifically:

But if you look at my thousands of edits you will see that I edit a wide range. This group, and the people they have instigated are the only people, aside from a couple of cases, that has ever had a problem with my editing.

Discussion:

[edit]

I was hoping to gain a better understanding of Wikipedia and how to function here. It appears now that this is not going to help me understand. I asked the Advocate to explain a message left on my talk page today and I do not understand the Advocate's explanation. He ignores my emails and my postings on his pagel It is obvious to me now that I don't have the techical abilities to operate at Wikipedia. I want to withdraw my request for an Advocate. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far I have been disappointed with my new Advocate, as my mew Advocate took it upon himself to advised me to have a cup of tea while he embarked, without any of the discussion indicated above that advocates engage in, on a series of actions that I deem to aggravate the situation by spreading my name openly on postings and edit summaries on Wikipedia. I wished a discussion and an understanding, not a cup of tea and unilateral actions on the Advocates part, disregarding me entirely as a person with experience of the situation, and with no discussion whatsoever.

Followup:

[edit]

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

  • Answer: No

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

  • Answer: He made a few small comments on pages, telling other people to be polite but as far as the real issues, he did not address them. He may have done more, as I only found out about the few things he did do accidently. He did not teach me anything and I was hoping to learn. I only had a few interactions with him the whole time.

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

  • Answer: 5

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

  • Answer: 1.5

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

  • Answer: can't answer -- I've never seen it in action.

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

  • Answer: That the Advocate interact directly with the person they are advocating for. My advocate never initiated contact me after the initial welcoming note. A couple of times I contacted him with questions and got short, superficial, uninformative answers. I do not want to be treated as a child. I wish the Advocate inform me of his actions and plans, to discuss things with me, to give me information. I do not like tea.

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

  • Answer: The Advocate did not alter the dispute at all. It remains the same. If I knew a different way to deal with this dispute I would do it. I no longer have any hope that the joy in writing and editing at Wikipedia can return.


AMA Information

[edit]

Case Status: closed


Advocate Status:

*Advocee taking a wikibreak. Addhoc 14:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not taking a wikibreak as I understand what a wikibreak is, although perhaps I am wrong. I am withdrawing from the Advocacy program, is that called a wikibreak? Please clarify as I am seeking to learn and need to know about diffs and watchlists. So, very basically, I need to know if I am on wikibreak now. Have you put me on one? I though a wikibreak was a little banner a person could put on their user page voluntarily. I am requesting that you take me off wikibreak if you have put me on one. Sincerely, Mattisse 14:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I misunderstood. Addhoc 14:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Several of the most important have not been contacted.

Biased evaluation of comments solicited by AMA Advocate SilkTorn

[edit]

[1] Since the diffs have been removed from this page I must copy the relevant comments (from the bottom of the page)

Re:Matisse advocacy background

[edit]

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

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

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

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

More comments by AdelaMae

[edit]

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

Mattisse Redux

[edit]

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

And of course most recently the Starwood arbitration:

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

Matisse advocacy background

[edit]

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

Not to argue but just to clarify: the mediation seems to have concluded that citing the website of the organization that runs the event (which is not "my website") IS a legitimate way of verifying the simple fact that an appearance of a subject did occur on a date in question, and other simple factual information, but that 1. individual multiple links to that site by each name & fact were both unnecessary and inappropriate, as the simple inclusion of the website in the reference section should cover it, and 2. to determine if an appearance is notable in the article of a subject, more may be necessary, for instance a third-party citation, a mention on the website of the subject, and/or some notable supporting fact such as the existence of a commercially-produced recording made of the subject's appearance (at least Salix Alba agrees this third factor supports notability, and no one has contradicted this). Many such citations have been supplied, and most external links have been eliminated. There also seems to be a generally-accepted opinion that for at least SOME of the artists, especially (but not necessarily limited to these) Pagan/spiritual/New Age speakers who have not spoken at so many venues that mention of one seems to violate "undue weight". The mediations have made it QUITE CLEAR that such issues should be discussed on a case-by-case basis.
It seems to me that the discussion has moved to how many internal links between the event's article and those of the artists appearing at it may be TOO many, and whether the lists of past speakers and entertainers are "unencyclopedic". There are major differences of opinion on this, compounded by the fact that there are no guidelines in Wikipedia for how many items should be in such lists and under what circumstances, and individuals on BOTH sides have been accused of expressing opinions colored by COI and POV issues.
The rest, in my opinion, consists of a constant drumbeat on the part of some to keep past accusations of harassment and other forms of wrong-doing alive to curry favor for one side or another's position, or perhaps to try to get one or more editor blocked so the other side can have a free hand to do their will. I would certainly like to see that sort of thing end. I would be happy to even lay the issue of Mattisse's sockpuppets to rest, if the behavior it caused in response was also laid to rest. But there are some who want to call what Matisse did "old news", but keep the response a live issue. Rosencomet 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

  • AMA Advocate Silk Torn prefered to believe the comments of sockpuppet and the center of the problems in the Starwood Artibration. My view is that AMA Advocate is incompetant as an AMA Adovocate and does damage in the performamce of his job. Furher he makes flagarant personal attackts against his former Avocess. He cannot be trusted to AGF toward his Advocee or to tell the truth regarding the incident. He does not investiagate the evidence provided and then makes accusations of lying and manipulation because he did not do his homework. I did not ask him to take my cast to begin with. He appears to identify with an protect sock puppets at the expense of sincere editors.

Update by User:Mattisse

[edit]
Please note that at least two of the above sock puppets had AMA Advocates. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 22:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As of this date I have received no feedback as noted above. Nor have the results of the "Investigation" been revealed to me. Once again, I am asking for feedback and the results of the information about me that SilkTork solicited be sent to him about me, using my name each time both in headings and edit summaries. I would also like to know if User:Jefferson Anderson's Advocate did send email information about me to now banned sock puppet User:999 as he offered to do in the Starwood Arbitration. I would also like to know what that Advocate meant when he said to User:999, after User:999 called me a group of incarcerated inmates, that the truth about me was much sadder. (The Advocate's offer and comments have been removed from the Arbitration record as inappropriate.) Sincerely, Mattisse 14:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Mattisse, I think you are a good faith editor and your actions involved in the Starwood case were entirely legitimate. Also, I believe that some other editors deliberately acted in a manner to increase your stress levels and push you into making an error of judgement. Overall, I think your decision not to be directly involved in the ArbCom case was prudent and the end result was fairly reasonable. Addhoc 14:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Addhoc, Thank you very much for your feedback. I also want to apologise to you again for not appreciating you enough at the time. I was too confused and did not understand what was happening and did not know about some of the help you were giving -- I was not following everything. I have learned to respect you a great deal. I unfortunately ended our relationship too soon, being so stressed out, but I now recognise that you were crucial in saving me. Looking back, you entered in at just the right time and gave me some breathing room. Also, I am trying (probably not very well) to model your behavior. So I do deeply thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I am leaving my position aside for a moment and speaking as an individual. With that out of the way, I must say Matisse, that overall you have not lent yourself to be helpful with the Starwood case, your Advocate, or anyone else within the AMA that you have interacted with. On the contrary, nearly every person who has touched your case has become almost immediately frustrated with your approach, attitude and demands." אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 04:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above statement by my current Advocate, the Coordinator of AMA, I am requesting a new Advocate so that my case may be closed. Sincerely, Mattisse 11:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request new AMA Advocate so my AMA case "under investigation" can be closed - AMA Coordinator refuses to communicate and makes personal attacks

[edit]

I request a new AMA Advocate. My current AMA Advocate took over my case on Feb.6 and has done nothing since. He refuses to close the case or to discuss it further with me. He has repeatedly expressed a poor opinion of me and accuses me of harassing him because I have asked him to please close my case.

First, before I say anything else, I am speaking for myself and I am not saying anything in any official manner with my position as the Coordinator of the AMA; I am leaving my position aside for a moment and speaking as an individual. With that out of the way, I must say Matisse, that overall you have not lent yourself to be helpful with the Starwood case, your Advocate, or anyone else within the AMA that you have interacted with. On the contrary, nearly every person who has touched your case has become almost immediately frustrated with your approach, attitude and demands. In repeatedly emailing me with things such as "Every day is agony" and various descriptions of how Wikipedia is ruining your life (which I, personally, find difficult to understand) I must admit that I, as a human being, have become nothing more than flustered at times, especially when my requests (which were for your sake) to calm down, take a step back and relax were staunchly ignored, along with my suggestions for reasonable plans of action that had reasonable chances of dealing with some of these issues. Volunteers only have so much zeal. :-) Now, speaking as the Coordinator I can tell you that we did what we could at the time you were having these problems given our resources at the time. We're currently in the middle of trying our best to improve our resources and abilities, so I find your discouraging comments only a reason for us to try harder to attain these goals. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 04:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)(UTC)[2][reply]

(quote from current AMA Advocate in Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Meeting on April 6 - emphasis added)

"Another large complaint is, keeping tabs on the quality of Advocacy cases. This is the source of all historical criticism (which, I may add, came from the period of time where the AMA was not functional and completely "ad hoc") and some recent criticism with a few disgruntled advocees (but I do not wish to discuss in detail how I was harassed by Mattisse here)." אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 16:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC) [3][reply]

Sincerely, Mattisse 19:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, please do not take my comments out of context. You have harassed me on and off Wikipedia and this was a statement of fact. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 14:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proof statements of facts. Mere assertions do not make facts. Learn to provide diffs. Unfortunately you must master that technique to have any credibility. Sincerely, Mattisse 04:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If all you wish is for your case to be closed then I have done so. I have also inquired into several Advocates if they would be willing to look over it. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 15:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse has asked me to take on the case, and I have accepted, subject to the Co-ordinator's approval. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to support Steve Caruso's comments above - I also became frustrated with Mattisse's approach, attitude and demands. And having recently come upon Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates in which Mattisse calls for AMA's deletion I am somewhat surprised that she asks here again for assistance. She is an experienced Wikipedian who can communicate quite effectively by herself and certainly is well aware of Wiki procedures. My own feelings are that she uses advocates much as she used her sockpuppets in order to gather support for herself. I feel she is manipulative and exploitive and is quite volatile and hurtful. I am personally hurt that she has been leaving negative comments about me on Wikipedia when I tried to assist her in a patient and supportive manner. I bitterly regret that I tried to help. She appears to be rather self-obsessed and detached from an awareness of how her behaviour and words can be hurtful to others. She is possibly in need of professional counseling. I am reacting now in response to reading today some of what she has said about me. She wrote untrue statements about me even after the explicit and lengthy advice I gave her at the time was to be open and honest in her dealings with people on Wiki. SilkTork 21:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please proof that you gave me lenthly and explict advice. All that exists is you pathetic Evidence file that I did not know about at the time. Plus the tea comment which I found offensive in light of my difficulties that you clearly did not comprehend, dispite all the links I provided. I have a posting from another AMA Advocate pleading with you to stop your destructive approach toward me and advising you to have contact and a closer relationship with me. I also have copies of my unanswered emails to you - six short emails pleading with you to stop spreading my name around the web in headers and edit summaries, especialy to all the sockpuppets, pleas that you disregarded. I notice that you also disregarded the positive comments people made about me. Sincerely, Mattisse 04:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how great your frustration, a couple of comments above would have been better left unsaid. There is no requirement to serve as an advocate, and no mandate that everyone who applies for an advocate is entitled to one. If someone has been difficult to work with in the past, it would be better to politely decline further requests from that person with a minimum of additional drama. Thatcher131 18:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A great many of your comments would have been better unsaid - in fact all of them. Your are supposed to be the model as the Advocate. It would be a much better world if you followed your own advice. There is no mandate that you take on a case either. The mandate part goes both ways. Sincerely, Mattisse 04:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what point you are trying to make, or even if your comment is in reference to my comment or Steve Caruso's, however I have said the above simply as a matter of record of my feelings about working with Mattisse. In case it is not clear to anyone reading this, let me explain that I don't like her. I don't like her dishonesty. I don't like the way that she lies about what happened. I don't like the way that she complained about me here while at the same time sending me messages pleading with me to help her. I withdrew from the case because I felt I couldn't trust her. I withdrew because I felt she was unstable. I withdrew because I found her tiresome. I was, however, polite with her, and I communicated with her, and I explained what I was doing. She claims that my emails went missing, so I sent her more message to another email address which also went missing. Apparently somebody gained access to her email account and diverted my messages or deleted them or some other strange happening. Anyway - I withdrew politely. She told lies about what happened. And continues to do so. I am here simply giving my side of events. I am here giving an account of how annoyed and hurt I am. Exactly what part of my experience do you feel I should withhold from any other advocate considering getting involved? Bear in mind I am only writing here because Mattissee feels it is OK for her to complain openly that I behaved badly. I have asked her to amend her statements, to apologise to me, and to refrain from spreading any more lies about me. She hasn't done so yet. And I suspect she won't, because in my opinion she enjoys the attention. SilkTork 22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to explore the evidence I provided you is not a reason to call me a lier. This behavior now is certainly not polite and is a gratuitous person attack.

You have been both equally destructive to me. And as I have had practically no contact from either one of you, I am not sure I can distinguish you as you have both been incommunicado and useless in my situation, apparently both totally uncomprehending of the reality of my situation, and so have merged in my mind. Sincerely, Mattisse ~
  • Note: The Advocate now defending his advocee in his accusations of sock puppery against me by going admin shopping has to drop the case for personaf reasons. He has recomended that Steve the Thadman, (a person whom he already defended for making extreme and unnecessary personal attacks on public talk pages against me as mere "blunt remarks") as the person to take over his advocee's case. Please realise it would be extremly unethical (I don't know if AMA has any ehics) but in the real world this would be extremely unethical. Sincerely, Mattisse 04:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really not helpful. I suggest you remove this. --Salix alba (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salix alba - feel free to find other matters to concentrate upon

[edit]

Please try to refrain from commenting on my afairs, if you are able. I do not find it helpful and would prefer that you would concentrate on other matters. I have not found you particularly helpful. So fee free to go away. I would appreciate it. --Mattisse 08:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/November_2006/Mattisse&oldid=1137460120"