Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2

message: Regarding comments about Cyborg Ninja's talk page in the desired outcome section, I would recommend blanking the warnings and forgetting about them. Addhoc 12:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read across Wikipedia that it isn't allowed to do that. I'll think about it though. I might wait until this dies down to not raise any objections. - Cyborg Ninja 20:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Addhoc suggests erasing Mattisse's block warning 

message: Since the instructions seem to say that users involved in the dispute shouldn't edit the "Outside view" sections, I'll leave my comments here.
===Outside view by David Fuchs===
My initial assertion of bad faith (at the AfD) was based on the manner in which Mattisse nominated Drapetomania for deletion, with the edit summary "there is no inclination to fix article", less than 2 hours after her initial complaints concerning the article. Before the AfD, she made no attempt to improve the article, nor did she start a discussion of what improvements she thought were necessary.
She has written several times that she initiated the AfD for purposes other than the deletion of the article. In effect, she has acknowledged that my assertion of a bad-faith nomination was correct.
My comment "that Mattisse's opinions were 'very white' with the edit summary of 'thank you massa'" came after my sufferance of Mattisse's abuse. Since she initiated this nastiness, continued to spew this unnecessary and childlike vitriol, and demonstrated her imperiousness at Talk:Drapetomania (writing "I removed the tag as another editor has provided an appropriate introduction" after several hours of other editors working on the article), I will continue to respond to her in the manner I deem appropriate. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if that violates WP:NPA and general civility? David Fuchs (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David Fuchs, you are picking and choosing arguments, choosing to ignore improper conduct by Mattisse and centering on Malik and stretching to include me. And that stretching is very thin. - Cyborg Ninja 00:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fallacy that you are committing is called Ignoratio elenchi. Basically, the topic of this discussion is Mattisse's conduct. Keep that in mind as being the number one issue here, not someone's reply as consequence to being repeatedly attacked. If Malik had started the problem, then that would be an issue, but he did not. - Cyborg Ninja 00:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have not engaged in a personal attack. Repeatedly being called ignorant, on the other hand, probably is a personal attack. And civility is a two-way street; I am civil toward those who are civil to me. Mattisse started this nastiness, and she persisted in it even when she was shown that the facts didn't support her views. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason why is that David Fuchs has his own reasoning for even entering this argument, which he will never admit here but hopefully he will to himself. And I want him to know that he should not ever again try to spread hostility across Wikipedia because he has had a disagreement with a user (in this case, me). - Cyborg Ninja 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments concerning Outside views 

message: My initial assertion of bad faith (at the AfD) was based on the manner in which Mattisse nominated Drapetomania for deletion, with the edit summary "there is no inclination to fix article", less than 2 hours after her initial complaints concerning the article. Before the AfD, she made no attempt to improve the article, nor did she start a discussion of what improvements she thought were necessary.
She has written several times that she initiated the AfD for purposes other than the deletion of the article. In effect, she has acknowledged that my assertion of a bad-faith nomination was correct.
My comment "that Mattisse's opinions were 'very white' with the edit summary of 'thank you massa'" came after my sufferance of Mattisse's abuse. Since she initiated this nastiness, continued to spew this unnecessary and childlike vitriol, and demonstrated her imperiousness at Talk:Drapetomania (writing "I removed the tag as another editor has provided an appropriate introduction" after several hours of other editors working on the article), I will continue to respond to her in the manner I deem appropriate. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if that violates WP:NPA and general civility? David Fuchs (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David Fuchs, you are picking and choosing arguments, choosing to ignore improper conduct by Mattisse and centering on Malik and stretching to include me. And that stretching is very thin. - Cyborg Ninja 00:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fallacy that you are committing is called Ignoratio elenchi. Basically, the topic of this discussion is Mattisse's conduct. Keep that in mind as being the number one issue here, not someone's reply as consequence to being repeatedly attacked. If Malik had started the problem, then that would be an issue, but he did not. - Cyborg Ninja 00:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have not engaged in a personal attack. Repeatedly being called ignorant, on the other hand, probably is a personal attack. And civility is a two-way street; I am civil toward those who are civil to me. Mattisse started this nastiness, and she persisted in it even when she was shown that the facts didn't support her views. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason why is that David Fuchs has his own reasoning for even entering this argument, which he will never admit here but hopefully he will to himself. And I want him to know that he should not ever again try to spread hostility across Wikipedia because he has had a disagreement with a user (in this case, me). - Cyborg Ninja 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside view by David Fuchs

message: A comment such as "Please try to learn what psychiatry is. It might be helpful if, not only did you learn something about psychology and psychiatry before you start adding terms, you learned something about the history of psychiatry and psychology." may not be a personal attack by itself. After repeated allegations that I was ignorant, I feel that statements such as this were part of a series of personal attacks. I agree that "Matisse is entitled to disagree with other editors and voice that disagreement with their edits". But she should do so WP:CIVILly, and in this instance she did not.
I am truly glad that you have "always known Matisse to be a very civil editor and she is not rude to other editors", but I believe that in this instance she was not civil. I honestly believe that she was pissed off that a non-specialist had the temerity to restore one of her deletions, and she responded with nastiness. It is evident in her edit summary concerning the AfD, it is evident in the AfD nomination, it is evident in her comments at the AfD, and it is evident in her subsequent comments. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside view by Merkinsmum

message: === Outside view by John254 ===
I've discussed John254's incorrect interpretation of RfC guidelines. He believes that they are only to be used in extreme circumstances, but this is not what is evident on the WP:RFC page or WP:RFAR. RfC, in name itself, requests for commentary on a matter from other users, in this case Mattisse's actions. John254 seems to have RfC mixed up with Arbitration. WP:RFAR states, and I quote, "For requests regarding the conduct of another editor, it is expected that the requests for comments (RFC) process will be followed" before arbitration is attempted. Mediation on drapetomania would have been attempted first, if not for Mattisse's unfair warning/block, personal attacks against Malik, and repeated claims that I was attacking her, which are completely untrue. Never has Mattisse shown evidence for my supposed personal attacks, and bear in mind, I speak for my own conduct. - Cyborg Ninja 00:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hardly consider it "everyone else." Both I and Malik were subjects of her hostility in this instance, and that's why this RfC was made. There are also clear examples of her hostility beyond the one strawman example here. I have no problem with outside views; I'm merely defending myself and showing my reasoning. I am going to move this to the Discussion page in a bit. - Cyborg Ninja 22:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In no way is "the author thinks African Americans in the 1850s are equivalent to acting out of problem children of today" NOT a personal attack. That is not hard to miss. Even throughout Matisse's actions, I have stayed civil, and strongly object to any suggestion that I have acted otherwise. - Cyborg Ninja 22:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I am also glad to know that Mattisse does not regularly violate Wikipedia policy. I mentioned twice, including on Mattisse's talk page, that she was a regular contributor, especially for Psychiatry articles, and so I have never desired to notify administrators about this one incident. I think it "kinder" to bring this up with Requests for Comment than AN. This way Mattisse is protected from administrative action even though she violated policy. - Cyborg Ninja 23:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it slipped my mind that Mattisse is/was a known user of sockpuppets (see previous RfC), which is extremely, IMO, against what Wikipedia stands for. However, the issue here is her current conduct against Malik, myself and the drapetomania article. - Cyborg Ninja 23:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: While you are correct that User:999 was a sockpuppeter, it was indeed proven that Mattisse was/is a regular user of sockpuppets. I merely clicked on several user accounts listed on the previous RfC and saw many that were banned for being sockpuppets of Mattisse. An admin also said, in the RfC, that Mattisse's sockpuppetry was well-known. The outside views were more about other matters than her sockpuppetry. Also, 999's conduct does not mean that Mattisse gets a free pass, so to speak. - Cyborg Ninja 00:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh.  That was over a year ago.  Besides it is irrelevant to the issue you claim to be having with her, her supposed "personal attacks" against you haven't involved sockpupppets, so you are just bringing this up to have a go and make others look unfavourably on her over an entirely unrelated matter to this RfC.Merkinsmum 17:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, references to past cases is not relevant here. Indeed, bringing it up is likely to be very counter productive. We do not wish to see a repeat of past events, where a small dispute blew up out of all proportions. --Salix alba (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments concerning outside views, from Cyborg Ninja 

message: I've discussed John254's incorrect interpretation of RfC guidelines. He believes that they are only to be used in extreme circumstances, but this is not what is evident on the WP:RFC page or WP:RFAR. RfC, in name itself, requests for commentary on a matter from other users, in this case Mattisse's actions. John254 seems to have RfC mixed up with Arbitration. WP:RFAR states, and I quote, "For requests regarding the conduct of another editor, it is expected that the requests for comments (RFC) process will be followed" before arbitration is attempted. Mediation on drapetomania would have been attempted first, if not for Mattisse's unfair warning/block, personal attacks against Malik, and repeated claims that I was attacking her, which are completely untrue. Never has Mattisse shown evidence for my supposed personal attacks, and bear in mind, I speak for my own conduct. - Cyborg Ninja 00:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view by John254 

message: * Comment Again, not sure if I should put this on the Discussion page or not. But here goes. I'll add to this later. As for the comments about me "assuming bad faith" -- you cite two posts from me. One, is related to Gavin Collins, who is very well known here. I had edited his Talk page about his run-ins with other users. Just look a couple RfCs below this. I do not make the "bad faith" claim lightly, as you can see over my years' worth of contributions. Only two days ago did I go onto AfD (I've been there about three times I guess), and seeing the abuse of the AfD process, did I make any "bad faith" claims. I also believe in transparency across all aspects of Wikipedia, which included me adding onto your page about your AfD on List of Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual People. Back to the point, your section link about bad faith is a comment I made on my talk page after more passive-aggressiveness from Mattisse. Her inherent hostility may be lost on users outside of the argument. One would have to see it step-by-step to understand. Here was her comment "With your help now, I'm sure the Drapetomania article will soon be vastly improved." In context of her previous writing in that post and others, she did not mean that literally in any way. But like I said, that could be hard to notice. I imagine you'll claim I'm assuming and twisting words, but I do hope that other users here will recognize what she meant in its original context. I'll talk about the other comments later. - Cyborg Ninja 21:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hardly consider it "everyone else." Both I and Malik were subjects of her hostility in this instance, and that's why this RfC was made. There are also clear examples of her hostility beyond the one strawman example here. I have no problem with outside views; I'm merely defending myself and showing my reasoning. I am going to move this to the Discussion page in a bit. - Cyborg Ninja 22:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In no way is "the author thinks African Americans in the 1850s are equivalent to acting out of problem children of today" NOT a personal attack. That is not hard to miss. Even throughout Matisse's actions, I have stayed civil, and strongly object to any suggestion that I have acted otherwise. - Cyborg Ninja 22:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view by David Fuchs 

message: *Comment I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, or if it belongs on the Discussion page. But the problem with the above example comment from Mattisse that you gave is that is inherently passive-aggressive and those statements were used multiple times even though she was told, and should infer on her own, that we are educated. I myself reviewed the history of Psychiatry, and knowing that modern Psychiatry began before the 1850s, was confident enough to edit the article's references to psychiatry. The thing is, by telling us, repeatedly, to "learn something about psychology and psychiatry" -- you one, assume/claim that multiple people editing an article on an obscure psychiatric topic know nothing about it (which is ridiculous), and two, ignore their replies otherwise. Also, the references to psychiatry in the article were added far before either Malik or I edited the article. And yet Mattisse continued to refer to Malik as the "author" of the article. This, on top of the repeated hostile comments from her, her ignoring other editor's views, her victim complex, and her putting a warning on my page for "personal attacks" that did not exist, adds to it. I hope this makes Mattisse' motives clearer. - Cyborg Ninja 20:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also glad to know that Mattisse does not regularly violate Wikipedia policy. I mentioned twice, including on Mattisse's talk page, that she was a regular contributor, especially for Psychiatry articles, and so I have never desired to notify administrators about this one incident. I think it "kinder" to bring this up with Requests for Comment than AN. This way Mattisse is protected from administrative action even though she violated policy. - Cyborg Ninja 23:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it slipped my mind that Mattisse is/was a known user of sockpuppets (see previous RfC), which is extremely, IMO, against what Wikipedia stands for. However, the issue here is her current conduct against Malik, myself and the drapetomania article. - Cyborg Ninja 23:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: While you are correct that User:999 was a sockpuppeter, it was indeed proven that Mattisse was/is a regular user of sockpuppets. I merely clicked on several user accounts listed on the previous RfC and saw many that were banned for being sockpuppets of Mattisse. An admin also said, in the RfC, that Mattisse's sockpuppetry was well-known. The outside views were more about other matters than her sockpuppetry. Also, 999's conduct does not mean that Mattisse gets a free pass, so to speak. - Cyborg Ninja 00:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh.  That was over a year ago.  Besides it is irrelevant to the issue you claim to be having with her, her supposed "personal attacks" against you haven't involved sockpupppets, so you are just bringing this up to have a go and make others look unfavourably on her over an entirely unrelated matter to this RfC.Merkinsmum 17:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, references to past cases is not relevant here. Indeed, bringing it up is likely to be very counter productive. We do not wish to see a repeat of past events, where a small dispute blew up out of all proportions. --Salix alba (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view by Merkinsmum 

message: * Cyborg Ninja and I asked for comments, we got them, and I consider this matter closed.
* My contribution to this RfC was limited to events of October 2007 and not the discussion of previous sockpuppetry allegations. But as a party to this dispute, I take responsibility for their inclusion here. I'm truly sorry and I apologize to Mattisse for including a matter (a) that had no bearing here, (b) in which she was vindicated, and (c) that evidently involved personal matters.
* With respect to Mattisse's questions and comments:
** Every editor has to make a first edit to an article at some point. Drapetomania and hundreds of other articles pertaining to African-Americans are on my watchlist. Yours were the first substantive edits to the article since February. I registered in December, and I'm not sure that the article was on my watchlist in February. That's why my first edit to the article came in response to yours.
**You're right: I never made any effort to improve the article. If you look at my user page, you will see that there are many articles of much greater importance that I'd like to work on. Unfortunately, I spend too much time on Wikipedia reverting vandalism and not enough time improving articles. Drapetomania was not a priority for me.
** Oppositional defiant disorder is "an ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures." I see a common theme between such behavior and slaves who escape from slavery or wander around the plantation destroying property. As a specialist, you were focused on the childhood aspect of oppositional defiant disorder and I was focused on its symptoms. Evidently you were also focused on the "appropriate authority" of teachers etc. and the "legitimate reasons" slaves might reject authority. That thought never crossed my mind, because slave-owners believed that they held the appropriate authority, that slaves who ran away or destroyed property were being "disobedient, hostile, and defiant", and that slaves were equivalent in many ways to children. Had you taken a minute to explain your deletion at Talk:Drapetomania instead of a curt edit summary that it was "totally inappropriate", we could have discussed our different views. At a minimum, we would have understood one another better. (I would also note that a "See also" link is not an "equation" of the two "disorders".)
** You write that I made no effort to improve Drapetomania after you tagged it. The reversion was my attempt to improve it: restoring what I considered to be a valid link.
** I never referred to your edits as bad-faith edits. In fact, I believe that your edits' were made in good faith. I never disputed your tags, because I agreed that the article needed work. On the other hand, I think your AfD nomination was made in bad faith.
** With respect to my comments at Talk:Drapetomania, I would point out that the article as it now stands is essentially what Cyborg Ninja and I wrote, with the balance of the article (the quotefarm, which pre-dates us) deleted. But you had nothing but criticism for our editing and only expressed approval of the article when other editors worked on it. You also made no effort to improve the article yourself. What would you think of an editor who exhibited similar behavior, after repeatedly calling you ignorant, telling you to learn about psychiatry, psychology, and their history — which is essentially irrelevent to the article, which we agree is about pseudoscience, not psychiatry or psychology — and sitting on the sideline acting like a backseat driver or... a slave-owner sipping a mint julep?
** Other editors have nothing but good things to say about you. I am very sorry that you and I "met" under these circumstances which resulted, in my opinion, from a lack of communication. Some of your recent comments seem to indicate that you're considering withdrawing in some way from Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that you don't stop editing as a result of this dispute. I'd like to put this matter behind us.
— Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The locus of the dispute does seem to be around the linking to Oppositional defiant disorder. At a surface level I can see Malik's point about their similarity: both relate to behaviour in response to power figures. Beyond that the similarity breaks down: the actions of the slaves can be seen as a rational response to oppression. Very different to the abnormal responses to authority seen in OOD. Linking OOD would in a small way legitimise Cartwright's thesis, and oversimplify a very subtle topic about the distinction be between authority and oppression, and between rational acts of resistance and abnormal behaviours. As this is such a tricky topic we do need to bear WP:NOR in mind, establishing a link between the two becomes OR unless reliable sources can be found which make this connection. --Salix alba (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final comments by Malik Shabazz 

message: I agree with Malik's comments above on many points. The main problem is that you, the subject of this RfC, have still chosen to ignore our comments and because of that, I do believe some of your problems may continue, due in part to ignorance. Even though both I and Malik have pointed out several of the mistakes you made: improper use of AfD, not using the Talk page, assuming Malik was the "owner" of an article, improper use of a Warning template on my Talk page, faulty allegations of personal attacks, etc., you have turned a blind eye to them. Malik has shown that he was and is willing to compromise on several points in the article, and I myself have made concessions toward you (which you have ignored) to appease your views. In addition, you ignored our numerous contributions to the article and have censored our involvement in the project in order to make yourself look better. You only added criticisms. However, and I am going to make personal commentary on you here, your pride has caused you to fail to notice your own wrongdoing, and that is likely because of your extreme sensitivity and tendency to victimize yourself (and I do not deny you were harassed by 999). I feel uncomfortable ignoring this RfC when you have continued to whitewash your mistakes and ignore all reasoning.
I am sorry for your personal problems, but you should not try to put the weight on our shoulders. I merely added the link to the sockpuppets because that was the first RfC and it was indeed found that you had sockpuppets -- that you admitted yourself, but said they were your granddaughter's. I did not know the circumstances at the time (and frankly still don't). But Wikipedia is and should be transparent. You don't have to delve into personal details, but Wikipedians are going to ask questions with good reason when something like that happens. And if I come off as insensitive, frankly I have my own issues that exceed far that of a normal person's, but I don't see how or why I could ever try to place some guilt on people here for it. If I had problems a few years ago when my mother died, and I acted irrationally, then I would calmly state why I did and apologize again, instead of asking and pleading and trying to erase all history of it. It was a bad time, but I learned from it.
Once again, Malik's final comments have stated my view well. We only considered your AfD in bad faith and you later admitted the reasoning for it (please review what bad faith really is -- it is not just trying to stir trouble). Malik erased the ODD link after you explained your reasoning. We made repeated contributions of value to the article can continue to do so. I myself have been extremely reserved when dealing with you and very kind enough not to notify AN and chose to go a route that would not put your account in jeopardy. Please make note of this: I have done many things in good will for you. All any of us wants is for you to listen to our reasoning, realize that you have made mistakes, and correct them. - Cyborg Ninja 22:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because another editor is incivil does not give you or Malik carte blanche to violate WP:NPA and other Wikipedia policies. This is a content dispute, yet you've tried to demonize the opposition for pointless reasons. Mattisse and you two should have sat down and tried dispute resolution. David Fuchs (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fuchs, frankly, who are you talking to? Me? Or an invisible audience to try to make me less credible? It's really pointless since I have shown so many times that I was never uncivil or violated any policies. Please, just don't bother anymore. I left you alone on that ridiculous AN/I and I let you yourself get away with two policy violations. Even defended you from some other users about your supposed-homophobia. Though perhaps I was wrong to do so. But that's not what this is about. Just know that while I tried to address your points earlier, you ignored them just like Mattisse, and it's pointless to go around in circles with you. I'm here to make Wikipedia better and to help users like Mattisse become aware of how to properly handle arguments. You have not helped by inserting your personal animosity into this. - Cyborg Ninja 23:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Mattisse, as for your addition to the response, I don't know why you bothered. It's clear as day that you did have sockpuppets and you ADMITTED it. Once again, you claimed it was your granddaughter. The conduct of 999 does not clear your conduct. The administration has blocked your puppets, but they believed your granddaughter argument and let you keep your Mattisse account. And Karen Ann. To follow your passive-aggressive comments to Malik days ago, in that style... Perhaps you should learn more about Logic? I'm done here. I only hope that if an issue comes up with you again with another user, that they will see this RfC and both Malik and I will be justified, and other people will learn from this. Cyborg Ninja 23:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments concerning Response