Wikinews:Dispute resolution/Brian McNeil and Mattisse

Close (as an uninvolved party in this dispute); Since Brian has withdrawn from this arena, and Mattisse is ok with an interaction ban, I'm closing this on the proviso that these 2 contributors stay out of each others way for the time being - and on the understanding that should further dispute arise between these 2 contributors, this DR may be reopened, to keep all material in one place. BarkingFish (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per an ongoing situation, and my comments above, this dispute resolution request is reopened, previous comments will be compacted, and new statements on this dispute taken from both parties. BarkingFish (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Brian McNeil and User:Mattisse
{{Hidden|1=This discussion is collapsed. Please comment below.|2=

Comments by Mattisse
User:Brian McNeil has continually disparaged me and made demeaning remarks about me with no cause. I have done nothing to him. He has called me "stupid" and referred to me as at a "kindergarden" level, and just recently on his talk page (which he has forbidden me to edit) say that I had to have things explained to me in words of "one syllable".

User:Brian McNeil filed a baseless check user against me, for which he had no evidence whatsoever. He says he had to do it because he was a "bureaucrat" (which I am not sure what that means, but it intimidated me) and that it was on the basis of "off wiki" information from another user here at wikinews with whom I had conflict. He never approached me informally, nor did the "other user" with whom I had conflict. The whole thing was very underhanded. He said later, after he filed the check user, that he just wanted me to say that I was not using sockpuppets. I have edited on Wikisource for close to a year and no one has asked me that. There was no transparency here. It is all secret and below the belt. There is no evidence that I have a sockpuppet here. And as Cirt pointed out at the check user request, having a sockpuppet is not against the rules in any event as long as it does not violate policy.

His check user request was denied on the basis that he had no evidence whatsoever. Since he is a bureaucrat (whatever that is) I would think he would know that he had to have evidence to have a check user performed. Therefore, I believe he did this in order to harass me.

I have tried very hard to be a positive contributor here and to learn the rules and do things right. Except for the first article I wrote, I have had no problems at all writing articles. All have been published 59 (and two others where all of my content was merged). I have had no conflicts writing articles or copy editing others. I have made many articles publishable that belonged to other ediors. I did point out that one published article was based on a press release and had inaccurate statements and was POV, as I was rather shocked, so that may be considered a "conflict" by Brian McNeil.

I had a "conflict" with one other user, who must be the one who provided the "off wiki" evidence. However, this user was not ethical enough to deal with me directly.

Brian McNeil has accused me of carrying out the agenda of another editor "off wiki" and "wikilawyering" on behalf of this editor. This is completely untrue. I have no contact with other editors off wiki. I sent one discouraging email to Pi zero when I first started and he replied kindly, but that correspondence has not continued.

I feel he is creating an ugly atmosphere here and I have been told to keep my head down and stay out of his way. I have stayed out of his way. I never invited contact with him. He assaulted me.

I don't want to write or copy edit any more articles or  here if his insulting and accusatory behavior toward me continues. I feel he should apologize to me and refrain from making demeaning comments about me around wikinews. If he has a specific complaint about me, he can deal with me directly instead of making comments on other pages. He can speak to me in an adult manner, and not treat me as a stupid child. He has unnecessarily escalated our dispute by refusing to be forthright, by using what can be considered personal attacks, and by apparently getting much of his "information" off wiki, thereby lacking transparency and expecting me to respond rationally when I don't know what is going on.

Thank you, Mattisse (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Gopher65

 * Thank you Gopher65 so much for your advice. (I don't think anyone is out to get me except Brian McNeil and the wikinesie who communicates with him "off wiki".) I was panicked by Brian McNeil's attack. (Didn't know he was brianmc.) I didn't know what to do or who to ask. I was scared. In retrospect I understand he had no power to force me but was pulling rank to bully me and threaten me that he would make me life miserable if I did not let him do a check user. At that time I wanted to continue to edit at wikinews as I was enjoying creating and editing articles. I admit I overreacted. I should have ignored it and just left for a week or so.

"I did not make a self request for check user. Please correct this statement. A check user was requested on me by User:Brian McNeil, not by me."
 * I don't feel any "onus" is on me to clear myself to edit here when there is no evidence against me. I want him to leave me alone and not always feel he has to have the last nasty dig at me.
 * Another example, after I merely commented that I did not request a check user. (Look at who filed it. I at no time in the check user said that I agreed to it.

"Per the policy note at the top of this page refrain from turning this into a theatre of war . I have, via, provided all required justification for my actions. Checkusers, please clear this idiocy from this page to avoid this fora being abused further."
 * Brian McNeil had to respond by making a last dig at me:
 * (He added this diff)

Your advice would be wonderful, except that Brian McNeil continues to harass me and to think that I am part of some kind of conspiracy against him.


 * I apologize if I "overreacted" out of fear in the past and if I overreacted to Brian McNeil's demeaning and "over the top" remarks. I apologize for any of my behavior  that has offended the community.

Brian McNeil continues to harass me on my talk page and make accusations

 * However, Brian McNeil continues to harass me and post on my talk page.
 * Another example, I notified him on his user page of this Dispute resolution:
 * His answer on his user page was to accuse me of wikibadgering someone on wikinews, whom he refused to disclose.
 * Instead of contributing to this Dispute resolution, he has continued to harass me on my page.
 * He makes accusations that
 * ""More to the point: please ignore whatever off-wiki guidance Tempodivalse has given you regarding "picking a fight" with myself; as stated above, xe has a long-standing conflict which I try to avoid. However, you've regurgitated, verbatim, at least one criticism I made of xe many months prior to you becoming involved here. I advise against becoming a proxy for someone else's wikilawyering or "whispering campaign"."

""* You have exhausted my patience – that is the point I was making. And, you're still in denial that you asked to be checkusered – do you have problems with reading comprehension? What you wrote is either not what you meant, or you're changing your story more than the weather here in Scotland does. Just go back to article writing, keep out of wikilawyering, and stop causing disruption. (Not to mention taking the very heavy hints that've been dropped not to be a pawn in someone else's campaign against myself). You waited,... what? At least a week after advised to take the nonsense on RFCU to dispute resolution, contributed a number of articles in the interim, then - out of the blue - decided to spit out the dummy and throw all the toys out your pram. Grow up. My fourteen-year-old acts more maturely than this online; and, is far, far more adept than you seem to be at avoiding causing disruption. Take a look at the history of dispute resolution; look at the one Tempo brought against me - xe dropped it because, sometimes, the truth hurts and you can't win. I have attempted to compliment you &mdash; "you write well" &mdash; so, stick to that; don't act like an attention-seeking preschooler (you won't then get treated as such); read more (How can someone not know "You're not in Kansas anymore" is a reference to the Wizard of Oz?); and, drop this delusion you're the best thing since a machine was invented to cut baked flour and yeast. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)"."
 * Please prove this. Brian McNeil is the one who uses "off wiki" into to harass others. Not I. I am not a proxy for anyone, whereas Brian McNeil clear is for the user he later revealed to me. I have sent one off wiki email to Pi zero, that is it. Does Brian McNeil accuse me of conspiring with him?
 * Again he accuses me of being manipulated by others:


 * Is this the way to resolve a dispute with someone? He is continuing his agenda. In the past he has called me "stupid" and other demeaning names.

I cannot continue to edit here with ongoing harassment, derogatory comments and accusations from Brian McNeil.

I am asking the community to help me so I can continue.

Thank you, Mattisse (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Regarding my statements to Brian McNeill on my talk page that seemed that I was asking for a check user, I have made it clear that I panicked when he bullied me and worded my response wrongly. I did not mean that I was  asking  for a check user as I am well aware the self requests for check user are against policy. That was a mistake that I have since tried to correct multiple times.   I assumed he thought he had evidence and would present it. I do not endorse "fishing expeditions" for myself or any one else.  I made all this  clear at the check user request he filed. I have repeated that I misspoke and that  I did not self request a check user. I do not like being accused of lying; I tried to correct the misunderstanding but my statements were ridiculed. He could have accepted my statements and withdrawn the check user he filed, since I clearly said I did not meant to ask for one.

Mattisse (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Brian McNeil accuses me of meatpuppeting and conspiracy against him.
 * "I certainly would like to; but, I cannot stand idly by whilst a child denigrates me in such a churlish manner. I have, with some thought, posted a response to xyr paranoid 'conspiracy-theory' type litany of alleged misdemeanours. I fully expect the current badgering of all-and-sundry to prejudice the community against xe, which would not be the outcome I would prefer.
 * Sadly, my technical efforts to pinpoint, and prove, where xe has been meatpuppetted have - as yet - borne no fruit. It would be a colossal waste of the community's time to have database dumps analysed to prove that xe is being manipulated by, or collaborating with, others who have "issues" with myself. I am 90%+ confident this is the case, and appropriate diffs will prove such to the community's satisfaction. If I am forced to waste the time digging up such data, I will; those involved in such covert collaboration can rely on their imagination for the community's reaction to exposure of orchestrated disruption. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)"


 * Brian McNeil threatens me with a block if editors support my Desupute resolution.

"I am happy to step back and let the community provide feedback based on what has - to date - been posted on the dispute resolution page. However, if RC fills up, again, with all-and-sundry's talk pages being spammed with, "Brian's sooo mean and nasty to me!", or considerably more perceived slights based on a lack of reading comprehension are added to the WN:DISPUTE, I will request an uninvolved administrator block Mattisse for disruption. I write here under my real name, that is my photograph on my userpage; I will not stand idly by and be libelled by a pseudonym. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)"


 * Unfortunately, I have a professional license to protect, and a complaint from anyone would bring me up before the professional licensing board of my state, entitling huge legal fees even if the complaint is unjustified. In other words, my professional career could be ruined by someone on wikinews. I am by training a forensic psychologist and cannot afford the risk of revealing my real identity here. I would be happy to provide my real name and professional license number to a secure source that will not divulge it on wikinews or any other wiki site. An editor should not, by policy, be discriminated against for refusing to risk professional suicide by participating here, per WMF policy. Mattisse (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This does not really belong here. In all honestry, the first step to do would be to take this to Brian's talk page and to try to achieve a concescus there - with you trying to analyse what you see, what exactly you are asking him to change and why! - before filing it here or at the Water cooler. I don't see you doing this before raising a "dispute" and its "resolution". While you both tend to misinterpret some things and/or their importance at times, the difference between you and Brian McNeil is the scale you take the actions to, and I do think that he is doing it more correctly. With that said, I wish you both a enjoyable time while you step back and occupy yourself elsewhere for a while. Gryllida 05:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already brought this up in a post at the Water cooler. I explained by background there under the heading Gryllida and the community.
 * I bring it up here because Brian McNeil brought it up regarding this dispute resolution as quoted above:

"I will request an uninvolved administrator block Mattisse for disruption. I write here under my real name, that is my photograph on my userpage; I will not stand idly by and be libelled by a pseudonym. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)"


 * Could you provide an alternative suggestion? Brian has said in his remarks below that he has "instructed [me] to leave my talk page alone." He has also said on his talk page that he discouraged me from posting there and on April 6 that "I will delete any, and all, further communications from yourself on this page, without response."  Mattisse (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I am being threatened with a block for posting in this dispute resolution

 * Brian McNeil threatened me above to have me blocked for "disruption" if others added remarks about him to the dispute resolution.
 * Also, I have been again threatened with a block for posting my disputes on this Dispute resolution page. : ""You continue being misrespectful toward one or more of members of Wikinews. This is not something WN:Etiquette allows, even if you think that their behavior is not justified. If you do not stop, you can be blocked from editing. Gryllida 03:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)"


 * How does one air a dispute without providing the evidence of what the dispute is about? I am confused. I thought that was what dispute resolution was for. The quotes from Brian McNeil all were made after this dispute resolution was filed. Has he been given a similar warning as he continues to be "misrespectful toward one or more of members of Wikinews." Is he not equally held to WN:Etiquette? I am only quoting his own words.


 * Please, will someone give me guidelines on how I can post my dispute without getting blocked for doing so?


 * If someone will not help me, I will withdraw this dispute out of fear and leave wikinews as I have not choice if I am being threatened with a block for engaging in the Dispute resolution process. I cannot post elsewhere as I have already been accused of spreading "disruption" for attempting to solve problems on talk pages. Thanks,  Mattisse (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to do anything. 1. Brian McNeil already saw your comments and took them into account as much as he could - note, there is no need to force him to state that or to apologise, we just realise that he's reading it here! 2. He also agreed to step out at his own talk page, though he was considerably upset by your attitude. Just posting at his talk page in a friendly manner in the first place, instead of posting at administrative places like this, would have made a positive impression. 3. Re: This place of course is for dispute resolution, but posting here is frowned upon after one of the members stepped away, you end up talking to yourself. --There is nothing more to be done. Gryllida 22:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

4. As of where to post, it's Brian McNeil's user talk page; like Microchip08 noted, you can seek assistance at the Water cooler if you can't resolve the issue via talk page means, but I think you can. I didn't see prior talk page interaction about those latest listed issues yet and think that the said interaction can yield meaningful results. 5. As of the "threat", it's not a threat, it's just a friendly warning about what may happen. It was not intended to impede your enthusiasm with news contribution at all, I bring my apologies if it does! I do want to keep you aware of that a block may happen depending on what you do. Gryllida 07:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Council for the defence
Gopher65, thank you for your attempt at constructive input on this utter nonsense. I fully accept your critique of my interactions with this particular user. I freely admit that, oftentimes, my interactions with immature users are sub-optimal; I assume an ability to understand British humour, to see a subtle backhanded compliment, and a preparedness to learn particular cultural memes that should carry significant weight within a journalistic community (cf: "Memory hole", "1984" ... George Orwell; "Not in Kansas anymore" ... Wizard of Oz).

It is, I will clearly emphasise, not my intent to treat this like a fictionalised courtroom du-ramah; which, yes, I somewhat unkindly, see Mattisse's efforts to play "counsel for the prosecution" (above) as. The point of dispute resolution is to de-escalate; not, as xe seems to view it, to start a prosecution with a view to seeking a verdict from a judge, jury, and action from an executioner.

I, bluntly, lack both the time and inclination to pick through Mattisse's contributions to highlight the diffs where they have taken umbrage at my comments and decided I am xyr enemy. Likewise with regards to their use of a uniquely British idiom I made use of regarding Tempodivalse's ongoing "crusade" to remove me from this project. Xe is, as far as I'm concerned, being meatpuppetted to dramatically disrupt this project with the aim of driving myself off it, or turning the community of editors against myself. '''That ain't going to happen. Everyone who has been here a few years knows that, and knows I've even stood up to "God-King" Jimbo to defend our editorial independence.'''

I first had some interaction with Mattisse around xyr 35th-40th published article; I did some copyedit work on said, raised points aimed at improving their quality of contributions, and suddenly found my talk page bombarded with remarks - including one which could easily be taken as "crowing" that I was wrong that xyr contributions were perhaps stale. I got, bluntly, pissed off at that; I - in almost words of one syllable - instructed xe to leave my talk page alone. This is a quiet wiki, it is easy to follow virtually everything on RC, and I have a real life.

Regarding the CU request; I will, yet again, try to explain this as simply as possible: Another well-established Wikinews contributor brought Mattisse's "problems" with such In The Other Place (more commonly known as Wikipedia) to my attention, and expressed their frustrations in dealing with this user there, and here. I, as a consequence, made it clear - in perhaps blunt terms on xyr talk page - that I was now aware of this. I was then challenged by xe to perform a CU to clear their name. I, lacking the privilege, cannot; I requested the check carried out - and all hell broke loose. The CheckUsers who reviewed that request clearly indicated I breached no policy in making the request, and numerous other contributors highlighted that Mattisse was working to turn WN:RfCU into a theatre of war.

I do not carry any grudge against Mattisse; however, I lack the skill and patience to correct the defects in xyr education. My opinion is that xe has demonstrated, beyond any reasonable doubt, that xe could not be trusted with any position of authourity on this wiki due to lack of maturity. Xe is, as stated in my previous WN:DISPUTE with Tempodivalse, a "firehose of output which lacks any understanding"; I will review any articles submitted by this user without predjudice, with the proviso that xe not needlessly badger myself or any other contributors.

To close, waiting nigh-on two weeks subsequent to a CU being declined, and xe being referred to dispute resolution to file such is "suspect"; that such coincided with myself having the opportunity to become more active is extremely suspect. Xe is, now - in my opinion - being purely disruptive to the project in xyr actions and comments on this page. I can, quite happily, avoid making personal criticisms if xe is prepared to accept that I may critique article contributions as a reviewer should. If xe cannot lose xyr persecution complex then I cannot see how xe can be a productive contributor to this project. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply to both users about this issue by Gopher65
I've had my share of disputes with others on Wikinews, so I thought I'd share a bit of my enormous stockpile of wisdom with you all (heh).

I just read over all the (many) posts about this on Mattisse's and Brianmc's talk pages, and on Administrators' Action Alerts. In my opinion both users originally overreacted about what was obviously much ado about nothing. What came after that was merely an ever increasing escalation of events cause by the original (avoidable) overreactions.

Here's a list of my (hopefully constructive) criticisms of both users:

Brianmc:
There was no evidence of socking, so you shouldn't have requested a CU, and probably didn't even need to post about it on Mattisse's talk page. If for some reason you did feel it necessary to ask Mattisse about it, a simple question along the lines of this would have sufficed: "As a prerequisite to a RfP, could you explain what happened on Wikipedia with regards to the accusations of sockpuppeting?" Simple is usually better, due to the universal "F" effect of reading comprehension. (People read a lot of the first paragraph, a little of the middle, and almost none of the end, similar to the shape of the capital letter "F".) This effect leads to misunderstandings on a regular basis, and can be easily avoided by keeping posts on a single topic, and as short as is reasonably possible (he says, while writing a giant post).

Further, I've found that there are two areas that repeatedly cause you trouble when interacting with other users:

This has nothing to do with the content of your posts (which I often agree with), and everything to do with the tone you use. "You can attract more users with honey than with vinegar". That saying isn't true of flies, but it is true of people. If they perceive you as being rude to them, they'll react harshly to the content of your statement. If they perceive you as being nice to them, they'll be more inclined to listen to what you have to say. That's just basic human nature.
 * You're overly curt, to the point of rudeness.

When I read Mattisse's reply to your original sockpuppet inquiry, I didn't read it as being particularly argumentative. If anything, it came across as panicked. This leads me to the more general issue with how you respond to posts by nearly everyone you encounter on this wiki: you usually assume the worst possible meaning that can be gleaned from a reply to one of your posts.
 * Your reactions to minor issues are extreme.

Remember the quote by Robert Hanlon when dealing with all of us (modified slightly for use here): "Never attribute to malice what can just as easily be attributed to ignorance". Malice can't be cured, while ignorance of facts can be.

Mattisse:
Based on my reading (and rereading) of various non-article related edits that you've made on this wiki, I have two recommendations to you that might help in smoothing your relations with other editors:

It seems to me that you're assuming an automatic defensive stance to absolutely everything that is said to you (probably subconsciously rather than purposefully). But you don't need to do that. Give other people the benefit of the doubt when you read their posts. Try not to read them with an accusatory tone of voice imposed over top of the words. (I'm not the only one that reads posts in my head with imagined regional accents and imposed emotional vocal tones (happy, angry, sad, etc)... ... am I?) ;)
 * Not everyone is out to get you.

Most of the things that people say to you are meant in an entirely neutral fashion. Sometimes they don't read that way, but such are the limitations of a text only environment like (most of) the internet.

But sometimes, sometimes people will attack you or the content you create. When they do, it's important to remember this: it's very rarely personal. It can't be personal, can it? I mean, we're all strangers here; we don't know much about each other. Any attacks that you may experience are based solely on what little you've said here, not on any past real life history... because we don't know that history. Since the people here have no personal history with you, nothing they do can be meant in a personal sense, by the very definition of the word. I know it can be hard, but I find that's a helpful thing to remember when faced with a dispute.

This leads out of the above recommendation. If you read a post that annoys or frightens you, try leaving your computer for a few minutes to calm down (in my case it usually takes hours). The best thing about this medium of communication is that we don't need to instantly reply to the things others say, and instead we can give calm, measured responses. This can be very helpful in avoiding disputes. In fact, I find this to be the best way for me, personally to avoid unnecessary fights. After a few hours it is much easier to reread the offending post and respond in a neutral tone, rather than allowing the conflict to spiral out of control due to emotional reactions.
 * Your reactions to minor issues are extreme.

The quote I mentioned to brianmc above was written by Robert Hanlon in 1980, but there is a much older version of the quote from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe in 1774 which better applies to you: "[M]isunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent."

Gopher65talk 02:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply to both users by Fetchcomms
I agree pretty much with everything Gopher65 said.

I suggest, if this issue cannot be immediately resolved with apologies all around and a nice cup of tea, that a one-month-long interaction ban may be worth trying. However, I'm not sure whether that would cause more harm than good given that Wikinews' community is so small that interacting with all the active users regularly is unavoidable.

 — fetch · comms  16:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply from Mattisse

 * I would agree to apologies all around, with all issues and accusations dropped completely on all sides and a fresh start begun. That is, all accusations and theories about behavior/misbehavior dropped, not to be brought up again, and good faith resumed.


 * Failing that, I would agree to a one-month-long interaction ban, including no posting on each other's pages, or reference to each other on one's own talk pages or those of other users or in other fora, request and discussion pages etc. I think that would work, as we had little contact before, except possibly over one article of mine which was not important as the article was published. Otherwise, I believe we have never interacted and a one-month-long interaction ban should be quite possible, as outlined above.

Thank you for your input! Mattisse (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments to both users by Dendodge
I'm going to keep this brief, and to the point. I wasn't going to get involved at all, but it's evident that somebody needs to point out the large grey pachyderms hiding behind the furniture. Without taking any sides - everybody involved is equally at fault - this is the way I see things: I expect everybody was aware of these facts, but I think everybody - especially the involved parties - needed to be reminded of them. I have one more thing to add, which may perhaps be more useful to the resolution of this dispute; that is, some advice. TLDR summary: Have a cup of tea and a sit down, and simply avoid each other for a while. This dispute resolution process is certainly not doing anything to help things, and the only way to stop the arguments is to - temporarily - stop the interactions. Now, while everything both users have done can - and should - be forgiven. And then, kiss and make up. DEN DODGE  17:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mattisse is overreacting. That's not an insult, nor an attack on xyr. Brian McNeil is a quirky character - he can be blunt at times, sometimes even offensive, but he has not singled Mattisse out in any way. The way xe reacted to Brian's recommendation of a TV show, for example, is an overreaction. At times, it seems more like Mattisse is reliving a violent crime in court than attempting to resolve a simple dispute/misunderstanding with somebody xe has never met.
 * Both parties seem to insist on continuing the dispute. Even this dispute resolution seems to be doing little to resolve anything - all it is serving to do is further the argument and drag more users into it. Yes, I admit that I have allowed myself to be dragged into the abyss, but I do not intend to further anything. I'm making these comments, and then I'm leaving, and will only return to address concerns directly related to what I have said. I would suggest that others do the same.
 * Much of this "dispute" arose from a series of misunderstandings. Brian said some things that perhaps don't read right if one is not used to his sense of humour - especially via a text-based medium like Wikinews. Mattisse misunderstood these comments, and took them personally. No personal offence was meant, I'm sure.
 * I would strongly suggest that both users stop doing anything to further the dispute. That means:
 * Stop talking to each other for a while. Everything either of you says gets misconstrued by the other. Take some time away from each other, and clear your heads.
 * When you come back, start anew. Begin again with a mutual clean slate, and try to be productive.
 * Related to the above point, I would suggest that this dispute "resolution" be brought to a swift conclusion.
 * If both parties are, therefore, willing to agree to keep all further interaction to an absolute minimum for the next month or so, and to forget anything ever happened after that period, this can be closed ASAP.
 * Otherwise, I'm not sure there is much that can be done here. The next step would be community - or ArbCom - imposed sanctions, and I don't think anybody wants to get to that point. Besides, the conditions would, I expect (I am, however, neither an arbitrator nor representative of the community as a whole), be somewhat similar to the voluntary agreement I suggest above.

Reply from Mattisse
I am willing to have a mutual no contact agreement with Brian McNeil and to start afresh with all  charges back and forth dropped on both sides. I am willing to move on. I apologize for my past behavior that has offended. I am sorry I overreacted. I have not had much contact with other editors, as two-thirds of my edits are article edits. but I will seek to have less in the future, so that I will not offend anyone. I hope this is acceptable. Mattisse (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It is good to see that you acknowledged your errors and decided to move on. This kind of behavior is a good example in the first place! My own interaction with the talk namespace started a few months later after I started writing news, and it also was tough - Brian McNeil was one of people who actually made it easier and helped me to get started with some of the articles I failed at the beginning... I agree that the work can be frustrating at times, and that sometimes we, as people, can misunderstand eachother. Just catalysing the issue, trying to get things done like we want instead of stopping by and observing inaccuracies in behavior, trying to attempt progress are indeed appreciated. Thanks, Mattisse, for your understanding on here. Gryllida 22:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)|bg1=#ffeeee}}

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

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

Mattisse's history on Wikipedia, and similar behaviour here

 * Preamble.

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

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


 * On Wikipedia.

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

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

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


 * A "false", or "constructed" persecution.

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


 * Userpage/talk blanking.

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


 * Taken to enWP ArbCom, spurned mentorship.

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

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

Then, March 2010, back to sockpuppetteering.


 * On Wikinews.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by involved party: Mattisse

 * Request that the first DR be reopened
 * I believe the first DR should be reopened. Brian McNeil did not address any of the points. He also did not address my offers of resolution. He never commented at all. Indirectly I was given to believe that he agreed to the mutual terms to apologize to each other (although it was explained to me that he could not be expected to apologize) and to uphold the no contact provision.


 * Although my understanding was that all issues would be dropped and there would be a "no contact" provision between Brian McNeill and my self, it seems that I misunderstood. Since Brian McNeill did not actually speak up, I cannot be sure what his understanding of the resolution was.


 * This is the only hint I received of any response from Brian McNeil and it was indirect, posted to me by another editor: There is no need to do anything. 1. Brian McNeil already saw your comments and took them into account as much as he could - note, there is no need to force him to state that or to apologise, we just realise that he's reading it here! 2. He also agreed to step out at his own talk page, though he was considerably upset by your attitude. Just posting at his talk page in a friendly manner in the first place, instead of posting at administrative places like this, would have made a positive impression. --There is nothing more to be done. [[User:Gryllida|Gryllida] 22:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)]


 * I took on good faith that he would respect the no contact provision and cease his personal attacks and demeaning remarks, although reading it now, I see that he was not really agreeing to anything. I don't understand the above remark, such as "he also agreed to step out at his own talk page". What does that mean?


 * Brian McNeill continues the personal and degrading and unnecessary attacks directed at me.
 * Apparently Brian McNeill misunderstood my remarks in the article "Comments" or perhaps I worded them badly, or perhaps I am not welcome to enter comments. In any case, Brian McNeil felt the need to attack me, attack my competency as an editor and my ability to understand the material I was writing about, implied that my shoe size was larger than my IQ, and insinuated that I was presenting myself falsely, that I was a fraud, comparing me to EssyJay, the editor who presented himself fraudulently.  He also denigrated my worth to the project and indicated I lacked the required skills to contribute to wikinews.


 * Examples from one Comments thread of Gay couple elected prom king and queen in Maine's Sanford High School
 * "You don't seem to understand the deeper aspects of any news item you're covering, you lack any real political awareness, and you're yet another fan of flock wallpaper adorned with fluffy bunnies."


 * "Oh, act your age - not your shoe size.


 * Your reading comprehension skills are pisspoor, you've a persecution complex, and you wilfully ignore good advice."


 * "The flip-flopping is worse than a Tory politician. What's an "adult" to do? I'm wondering "how can a forensic psychiatrist have poor reading comprehension skills?" – Relatives of EssJay, I'd certainly understand that failing."

Therefore, nothing has changed since the first DR. None of the issued raised were addressed by him. As far as I know, I have done nothing wrong except make a remark on a "Comments" page, which I thought was safe. Now I know it is not safe to make comments on a Comments page. Hopefully, I will not make that mistake again.
 * Summary - the first DR was not resolved. My comments were not responded to by Brian McNeill and my complaints are the same.

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

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

Statement by dispute moderator: BarkingFish
At this point, I feel I must recuse myself of further involvement in this issue. You emailed me a couple of hours ago, Mattisse - and made it quite clear you did not want to involve yourself in this again. If you are going to tell me one thing, and do another, I cannot remain impartial at this forum - I will instruct or request another administrator to deal with, and conclude proceedings here as they see fit. However, your request to open the first DR again, is denied at this time. The first one was dealt with, it's flared again, this is the place to put it. BarkingFish (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Sorry. I just don't know how to get help. I don't know how to handle this. I am so sorry. I think it is futile anyway. I am not wanted here. I think the only horrible and unforgivable mistake I have made since the last DR was to post on the Comments page.  Mattisse (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You were emailed? That would be a repeat of another tactic/behaviour from enWP. Such can be deduced from the more recent entries in Mattisse's block log there. The final block had to be tweaked to also prevent sending emails. I suggest contacting that blocking administrator - who is still quite active - and asking them for a,... "character reference". --Brian McNeil / talk 06:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have emailed BarkingFish once. (I did not know it was a sin, as at other wikies it is openly allowed). However I have rarely emailed here. It is not something I like doing and I emailed much less than editors commonly do. He did not reply and he recused himself because of my email. I do not have the means to gather all the "off wiki" behavior that you have. I have no means so I emailed BarkingFish, asking for advice. I do not have a copy of it but BarkingFish does.  Now I know never to do that again.


 * Do those who provide you with "off wiki" information recuse themselves also, or is this "off wiki" information you get is only appropriate for you and "doesn't count"? You are trying to make out that this is a sinister plan on my part, when I am only seeking help. I think that you are paranoid (as you have accused be of being) because I have not cooked up any elaborate plan. I merely wanted to write and edit articles and that is 99% of what I have done here. It is foolish to think that I would sockpuppet here, even if I wanted to, which I don't. With so few editors here, and with the numbers dwindling daily, a new account would be blatantly obvious. Why are you so fixated on that? I have been on the Commons since 2006 with no sockpuppets. And on Wikisource almost a year with no sockpuppets. You obviously have not examined my sockpuppeets. Most of them barely edited, some not at all, because they were demonstration account for friends and neighbors that I wanted to introduce wikipedia to, but did not want to reveal my account to them. But with only a handful of active editors at wikinews, no one could sockpupped with out being crystal clear that they were one. Since I have started here in February I have only seen vandal accounts.


 * I read what BarkingFish wrote above; you contacted him, stated you were not going to respond to the reopened dispute, and that you were leaving. You did not; it is just repetition of the same Drama Queen behaviour you engaged in, for four years, on Wikipedia. The self-same claimed lack of understanding; self-same lashing out with torrents of percieved wrongs or injustices against yourself. In four years you learned zero about interacting in an online community; you are The September that Never Ended personified.
 * What you did in emailing BarkingFish could, to put it in terms you might understand, be construed as trying to influence the judge outwith the courtroom.
 * You brought the put-down on yourself by ignoring two warnings that you didn't understand what you were getting into through interfering in a Comments (Trollspace) discussion; you demanded censorship on a news website. The "I don't know what to doooooo!" is tired and old, you were told - dozens of times - on Wikipedia. You never learned, just kept on wearing your martyred victim complex.
 * I think Gry is wasting xyr time completely. You're not going to change; you still think the world revolves around you.
 * The sooner we take the same measures as Wikipedia, the better. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I emailed BarkingFish as I stated above. I was scared and had many confused feelings. I and was looking for direction and I expressed the conflicting  my feelings running through my head. I was full of fear.  I wanted some help and I trusted him to be objective. I do not have a copy of the email and I understand the WMF rules are that emails are private correspondence and cannot be disclosed without consent of both parties. I trust BarkingFish that he would not violate confidentiality. I did not realize that BarkingFish would in any way be acting as a judge. I thought it would work as before, that the community would give inpute (although I doubt they will as I have a target on my back now) and that someone would close it, as before, as resolved but with out any really attempt to resolve the matter.I am confident that you will interpret my attempts to reach out in the worse possible way and see it as part of a conspiracy, or meatpuppeting or some other devious action. You assume that I think like you. I don't. You think that way, not me. I just wanted some human contact. But I see it is hopeless and there is no one I can reach out to here, no help, no compassion.

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


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

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


 * Although my understanding was that all issues would be dropped and there would be a "no contact" provision between Brian McNeill and my self, it seems that I misunderstood. Since Brian McNeill did not actually speak up, I cannot be sure what his understanding of the resolution was.


 * This is the only hint I received of any response from Brian McNeil and it was indirect, posted to me by another editor: There is no need to do anything. 1. Brian McNeil already saw your comments and took them into account as much as he could - note, there is no need to force him to state that or to apologise, we just realise that he's reading it here! 2. He also agreed to step out at his own talk page, though he was considerably upset by your attitude. Just posting at his talk page in a friendly manner in the first place, instead of posting at administrative places like this, would have made a positive impression. --There is nothing more to be done. [[User:Gryllida|Gryllida] 22:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)]


 * I took on good faith that he would respect the no contact provision and cease his personal attacks and demeaning remarks, although reading it now, I see that he was not really agreeing to anything. I don't understand the above remark, such as "he also agreed to step out at his own talk page". What does that mean?


 * Brian McNeill continues the personal and degrading and unnecessary attacks directed at me.
 * Apparently Brian McNeill misunderstood my remarks in the article "Comments" or perhaps I worded them badly, or perhaps I am not welcome to enter comments. In any case, Brian McNeil felt the need to attack me, attack my competency as an editor and my ability to understand the material I was writing about, implied that my shoe size was larger than my IQ, and insinuated that I was presenting myself falsely, that I was a fraud, comparing me to EssyJay, the editor who presented himself fraudulently.  He also denigrated my worth to the project and indicated I lacked the required skills to contribute to wikinews.


 * Examples from one Comments thread of Gay couple elected prom king and queen in Maine's Sanford High School
 * "You don't seem to understand the deeper aspects of any news item you're covering, you lack any real political awareness, and you're yet another fan of flock wallpaper adorned with fluffy bunnies."


 * "Oh, act your age - not your shoe size.


 * Your reading comprehension skills are pisspoor, you've a persecution complex, and you wilfully ignore good advice."


 * "The flip-flopping is worse than a Tory politician. What's an "adult" to do? I'm wondering "how can a forensic psychiatrist have poor reading comprehension skills?" – Relatives of EssJay, I'd certainly understand that failing."

Therefore, nothing has changed since the first DR. None of the issued raised were addressed by him. As far as I know, I have done nothing wrong except make a remark on a "Comments" page, which I thought was safe. Now I know it is not safe to make comments on a Comments page. Hopefully, I will not make that mistake again.
 * Summary - the first DR was not resolved. My comments were not responded to by Brian McNeill and my complaints are the same.

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

Brief response

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

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

Further statement addressing Brian McNeill's further accusations

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

I joined Wikipedia on May 6, 2006. Neither my family nor I had ever edited or posted on the internet before and we had a steep learning curve. Starting in July 2006, I was pursued relentlessly by three sockpuppets until January of 2019: They reverted, vandalized, redirected my articles and edits as many as 39 times a day. They continued until Requests for arbitration/Starwood in January 2007 in which it was discovered they were sockpuppets. All were permanently banned from Wikipedia. But during that time they filed AN/I reports almost daily on me (I did not know this for a while and did not understand). I tried to get a mentor, to get help in any way I could find, but it was a brutal experience Much of the info in that edit was truth, some I don't quite understand, as some of the editors mentioned were helpful and on my side. The information in the edit had no impact as I recall. Confused speculation. But as explained above, these three editors stalked and harassed me, vandalized etc. for over six months without respite. I really did not understand what was going on. The issue of the Starwood articles was not settled until the Starwood arbitration. As for this outing, you are still back in 2006, and even then my behavior was not considered serious enough to warrant anything more than a short block. I must admit I don't understand this accusation of page blanking People blank their pages all the time. I have not done it very often, but there is no rule against it and I have never seen anyone punished or reprimanded for it. Rather the opposite. Usually it brings sympathy. Truthseeker88 recently blanked her page, and that prompted other editors to consoled her. I have seen it done at wikinews and no one seems to mind. And more confusing I am being accused of an IP blanking! An IP blanks my page and a vandal fighter restores it. How is that a fault of mine? I notice the page contains a post by now banned user Hanuman Das and he mentions his sockpuppet 999 (we are still in September 2006) and I didn't know he was a sockpuppet but I did know he was vandalizing my edits. Please understand how confusing it was for me. I actually tried to make friends with Hanuman Das!
 * Ekajati
 * Hanuman Das
 * 999
 * I will reiterate that Loopy48 is not a sockpuppet of mine. I requested a check user but it was refused. Loop48 is not me. I have admitted to all the sockpuppets that were either me or came from my computer.
 * You mention Always Blue. Always Blue made six noncontroversial edits on March 7, 2010, one to a sandbox. That is it. I think that if you look at most of the other edits of the sockpuppets, you will find equally trivial edits. Remember, on wikipedia it is not illegal to have alternate accounts if they are not abusive. Recently admin Bishonen was asked to disclose her many sockpuppet accounts. She refused. So I ask you to understand that sockpuppets are frequent on wikipedia and that is the culture there. I did not understand that if my daughter or my neighbor wanted to try out Wikipedia and I helped them log on with what I considered a temporary account as I did not want them to use mine, that all those would be considered sockpuppet accounts. Geogre was found by Arbcom to be using a good hand/bad hand account against me, among others. He was allowed by arbcom to keep the two accounts but to label his bad hand account as an alternate account of his. He refused and has not edited wikipedia since. I give you these examples in order to explain the culture of sockpuppets is different there.
 * I think that providing three links from the summer of 2006  , which was five years ago is not representative of anything. The first is an apology and I don't see anything wrong with it. The next two are to a close friend at the time who did not follow through and help me with the Starwood business when I had helped him. Feeling get expressed on wikipedia and there is nothing wrong with that. Remember, I was being harassed by sockpuppets relentlessly  at the time and I was stressed out. I was discouraged. I have seen many, many people express discouragement, many retire and come back (or not come back). Malleus is famous for his threats to leave, probably at least 20 times that I have witnessed. It is a way of dealing with stress that human beings use. I don't think there are any rules against expressing some honest emotion. I did not harm anyone. I still have friends at wikipedia who like and respect me.  It does seem to be that at wikinews many, many editors have left and not come back. Perhaps if there was a more permissive atmosphere at wikinews where genuine emotion was allowed but nasty bards, self-serving "witicisms" at the expensive of others were not allowed instead of visa versa the way it is now, that more than 243 editors a month would edit.
 * A "false", or "constructed" persecution.
 * Ekajati
 * Hanuman Das
 * 999
 * Userpage/talk blanking.
 * Taken to enWP ArbCom, spurned mentorship.
 * Brian McNeill is way way oversimplifying the situation which he clearly does not understand. Has he read arbcom's directions. Or is he merely trolling through my edits and grabbing some of by 100,000 edits to make me look bad at wikinews? I'm seeking to do well here. I should not be judged on behavior of the past on another site.

I am not and will not use sockpuppets again.
 * Re: etc., I don't think you understand what the diff shows, or  realize how hard it is to try to follow arbcoms directions when a mentorship such as I was trying to construct had never been accomplished before, I had vested admins locking down pages, blocking me etc. and my mentors most of the time were not available. Geometry guy rarely edits, for example. Also, if you look at that diff, you will see that I am expressing confusion, Geometry guy is expressing confusion. He does not say I am "unsavagable". Please read, the link Brian McNeill provides. In actuality the link shows Geometry guy "collapsing" some comments with the title This was not a seriously problematic discussion, but all editors involved, including myself, may obtain a more objective perspective by stepping back for a while. That is not saying that I am "unsavagable" as Brian McNeill claims.  We were all confused as arbcom gave no clear direction. But the plan was a mess. The one thing that arbcom said was that I should have control over the plan, and I was not allowed to have control. We were all frustrated. Yes, in March 2010 I was blocked indefinitely for running sockpuppets while my main account was blocked by an admin. That is well known. I was not banned and I was given an offer by Risker a few months ago  to reapply to Wikipedia in six months.
 * Re sockpuppeting

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


 * Brian McNeill says: "Sockpuppetting on Wikinews would have far, far more potential to fatally damage the project's credibility. Multiple voting is the least of our worries; consider the damage an individual could cause subverting the peer-review process."
 * Response
 * There is absolutely no evidence that I have sockpuppeted on wikinew, nor that I ever will. You have no evidence as such. Your request for a checkuser was turned down because you have not a scrape of evidence. I think a sockpuppet could be identified by eyeball. Usually there are only a handful ef editors vote on anything. I am not sure what you mean by "subvering the peer-review process". How would I do that? Please provide evidence that I have even remotely come close to doing that. I don't see that it is even possible.


 * Brian McNeill says: "Do I have evidence that Mattisse has engaged in such behaviour? No, at least not yet."
 * Response
 * Then get some. I have been here only a few months. Ir would take less than an hour to go through my diffs. Besides, give the very few active editors here, who of those very few do you suspect is my sockpuppet? Or do you suspect everyone?


 * Brian McNeill says: "However, the above four-year wiki-soap-opera, shows every sign of trying to switch channels to Wikinews."
 * Respnse
 * Why would I want to do that? I am trying to rehabilitate myself. What would my purpose? I used sockpuppets on wikipedia for a variety of reasons; I let other editors use my computer, I did not know that allowing others to set up their own accounts was wrong. Most of the sockpuppet made few if any edits. In 2006 there was som shenanigans involving my family, but now since. I encouraged a neighbor to edit wikipedia on my computer, and his edits were charged against me, even though he edited completely different topics and made no offensive edits. I used sockpuppets to evade the sockpuppets stalking me. These sockpuppets made responsible edits, never damaged but only improved articles and were praised by other editors. My goal was never to undermine wikipedia. That is the way your mind works, not mind.
 * Again, I remind you that I have edited on other sites with no problems. I suppose when a wiki is generally an unhappy place, and editors are fleeing, Brian McNeiall may seek to attribute this problem to other editors' behavior. I was so happy when I joined wikineews, I loved writing and editing and fixing up articles.


 * Brian McNeill says: "If I must cite parallel examples from here that match the above, I am confident I trivially could."
 * Brian McNeill says: "Persecution complex? Check!"

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

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

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

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

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

I agree. I would like the community to give me feedback on my failings, hopefully in a compassionate way that acknowledges that I bring some value to the project.
 * Brian says: :I would invite the community-at-large to provide input on this. It can't be tolerated here for four months, let alone four years. No interaction ban could prevent this happening with any other administrator or 'crat whatsoever who posts a remark that Mattisse misconstrues. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Response

It would have helped if you had responded to the first DR,  if you had clarified your remarks there, which were also a series of personal and hurful attacks that did not convey useful information to me what I was doing wrong. Specific, concrete explanations are way more helpful that silly, personal jokes with barbs attached. For example, several editors have asked me what does "Dorothy, you're not in Oz anymore means." Do you want to communicate or do you want to make silly, injoke remarks? If you communicated clearly, then I would understand want you mean here. Are you really saying the following remarks on an Article comment page are informative in a useful way, or are you trying to humiliate me to drive me away?:
 * "You don't seem to understand the deeper aspects of any news item you're covering, you lack any real political awareness, and you're yet another fan of flock wallpaper adorned with fluffy bunnies."
 * "Oh, act your age - not your shoe size."
 * "Your reading comprehension skills are pisspoor, you've a persecution complex, and you wilfully ignore good advice."
 * "The flip-flopping is worse than a Tory politician. What's an "adult" to do? I'm wondering "how can a forensic psychiatrist have poor reading comprehension skills?" – Relatives of EssJay, I'd certainly understand that failing."

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

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

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

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

Thank you for hearing me out.

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

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


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

Your behavior here is similar to what happened at Wikipedia and as such some of us loose patience explaining things. A number of people have Water Cooler on watchlist and should be happier to assist you. --Gryllida 00:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please point out what I am doing wrong. I have quoted Brian McNeill's remarks and I have described how those remarks have affected me. Is that wrong. Look what he is doing! He is dragging up 2006 edits on wikipedia. Why? How could anyone be a sockpuppet here with hardly any editors? And does one comment deserve the DR he filed? Especially since he never responded to the one I filed. At least I give him the respect of responding. Post Brian McNeill's DR at the Water Cooler? I don't understand what you mean. I did not file the DR, he did. What do you recommend I ask at the Water Cooler? Mattisse (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

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

It's not something you did wrong, but rather an advice I'm giving to have it easier for you to reach understanding with this wiki. Gryllida 01:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that I should remove my response to the DR and post it at the Water cooler? I did not response in his comments in his comments section. I responded under a different heading. Is that wrong? Should I remove my response to the DR. After all, he never responded to mine. Perhaps it is wrong here to respond to a DR. Is that it. Should I remove my response? What have I done wrong except be foolish enough to think that I could post a comment in the Comments section of an article? I really don't understand. Please explain further. What have I done wrong? I posted at the Water cooler as you suggested. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such would be subject to community approval, of course. This has had an effect upon such a wide part of the userbase that I'd want consensus for any remedy. However, I can think of no real alternative. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You can try; I'll go buy myself a big bucket of popcorn. Hint: Mattisse effectively fired her mentors on Wikipedia because she was not allowed to haggle over the terms of probation/mentorship, nor to reinterpret them creatively. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your popcorn will go to waste; if it becomes an issue in itself, I'll simply wash my hands of it. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Request from Cirt
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Can both parties please comment in a very short brief statement, no more than four sentences, of what they feel the substance of the continuing ongoing problem is?
 * 2) Can both parties please also make a statement, saying how they feel this problem can be solved or addressed, what remedies can be taken - in no more than four sentences?

From Brian McNeil

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

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

From Mattisse
Thank you very much Cirt. Since we had some contact on wp, perhaps you are aware of some of my competencies as well as my failures. All I want is a fresh start here where I feel I have positively contributed. Articles I have published since March 2011 number over 60: I feel the problem can be solved and I can continue to be productive if Brian McNeil will agree to the following:
 * 1. follow E, specifically: Don't label or personally attack me or my edits. Instead, explain to me civilly my mistakes in an informative manner. Recent examples:
 * "you're yet another fan of flock wallpaper adorned with fluffy bunnies";
 * "Your reading comprehension skills are pisspoor";
 * "how can a forensic psychiatrist have poor reading comprehension skills? -Relatives of EssJay, I'd certainly understand that failing.";
 * I was asked to lay off you by another Wikinews contributor who you, apparently, told you were a forensic psychiatrist. I trust them to not have been lying; you, less-so by the second.
 * "act your age - not your shoe size";
 * labeling me as homophobic.


 * 2. respect the "no contact" proposal in the last DR which included no talk page references to each other;


 * 3. stop repeated unsupported accusations based on "off wiki" communications from  unnamed accusers; instead, produce transparent evidence on wiki;
 * eg. that I am a tool of a meatpuppet involved in a conspiracy and a "whispering campaign" against him and wikinews;


 * 4. produce evidence from this site not my past on another site; if he thinks I am sockpuppeting here, he file a proper Checkuser request with diffs.

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

Reply by Cirt
Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * After having read the responses, it seems that though there is some merit to the comments by Brian McNeil, in addition from Mattisse points (2) and the latter half of point (4) from his response also seem rational.
 * Query: Would both parties agree to a mutual interaction ban, to not interact with each other or comment in reply or response to each other on any pages on this project, broadly construed?
 * Yes, I would! Thank you, Cirt. That was the proposal in the first DR and I agreed to it there and I agree to it here. I believe this would solve the situation for me! I would also appreciate any other insights you could give me about my behavior. I know I am over sensitive, and I will work on that.  But also I don't know the rules of the site. Like I didn't know there was a trolling namespace! Mattisse (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mattisse, I would suggest that even if in the future you feel the other party to this dispute is not respecting the action of refraining from mutual interaction &mdash; that it would be in your best interests to not engage, and rather, ignore, such issues directly. Rather, you could approach a third-party editor to discuss it with them. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cirt. I will really take your suggest to heart. I have always admired the way you conduct yourself. Mattisse (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am bit surprised by that complement, and I thank you for it. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As demonstrated above, Mattisse cannot follow simple instructions; instead of four short sentence responses, a set of demands and grievances is laid out. I apologised for the length of one response, and I made no demands for retribution. The above, although 'decorated' with the odd compliment to yourself, is not what was requested.
 * I can attempt to avoid interacting with Mattisse, but would not expect such to include avoiding reviewing xyr work.
 * Of more concern to me is Risker's analysis from enWP. Grudges were held over a four-year period, and very, very personal attacks made via email. I'm highlighting this now because, as stated earlier, Wikinews could not stand four months of the same disruption enWP took for four years – regardless of the volume of synthesis output.
 * I would have preferred not to post such a lengthy response here, and will try to avoid/ignore Mattisse; but, some "claims to clueless newbiehood" needed debunked. The biggest problem is that this is a small, but fast-paced, wiki; how long Mattisse can avoid myself, and vice-versa, remains to be seen; xe keeping out of the comments namespace completely is just a small part of it. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Cirt in response to responses from the two parties
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Mattisse has agreed to a mutual interaction restriction.
 * 2) Brian McNeil has agreed to avoid where possible interactions with Mattisse, save for the possibility of reviewing articles.
 * 3) Mattisse has agreed to refrain from commenting in reply to Brian McNeil.
 * 4) Therefore as applied to reviews, Mattisse can respond in this one exception instance &mdash; but only to the substance of the review itself, and not directly to Brian McNeil &mdash; very narrowly interpreted, only to address the review itself, and then wait for a 2nd review from a different editor.
 * 5) Under these mutually agreed restrictions, this appears to be resolved for the time being.
 * 6) It is assumed from above statements that both parties agreed to a good faith effort to adhere to the mutual interaction restriction, and that formal imposition of same from the community, or other dispute resolution processes, is not necessary at this time.
 * 7) However, if the parties cannot adhere as such, and disruption occurs, again, then it will natually become more likely that some form of interjection from the community or other dispute resolution process will be needed &mdash; in order to formally impose the restriction on the users involved.
 * 8) This is not a ruling or judgment by myself, merely a summary statement of the impact of the good faith comments by the parties above in their agreements to a mutual editing restriction.
 * Thanks, Cirt. Your summary is clear and I will abide by it. Mattisse (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Thank you for stating you will abide by it. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)