Jump to content

User talk:Mattisse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mattisse (talk | contribs) at 02:28, 6 November 2010 (→‎Go slow and take the long-term view: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Anyone who has problems with my editing is encouraged to post at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts.

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Edited to Mount St. Helens

I think a more appropriate tag to put near an inline cite that goes to a webpage where a story has been moved or pulled would be something akin to dead link, not failed verify. It was a simple matter to verify after going to archive.org. ---mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 04:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link is misleading, as the link checker will frequently show such a link as good. As far as I know there is no tag for "moved or pulled" as you suggest. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Arthur Stayner

Updated DYK query On February 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Stayner, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

For running multiple accounts per a checkuser, and attempting to continue to attack another user, I have indefinitely blocked this account. SirFozzie (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Is there no doubt about this? Could you not be mistaken? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've had several people look at this, persuant to other issues, and they've signed off on it. SirFozzie (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any details of this? I've looked in a few places and could not see reference. What was the puppet account? --Salix (talk): 08:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts. One minute, I'll tag them. SirFozzie (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Charles Rodriguez (talk · contribs) is a sock. Oh dear Mattisse I would have hopped you would have learnt by now that sockpuppets is not the way to go.--Salix (talk): 09:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We really didn't need the checkuser to confirm as the account uses the same unique language and words as Mattisse, a style that only she uses. It's disheartening because many of us were hoping Mattisse would change her spots and pull through. Mattisse, if you are reading this, please remember that you don't need this kind of negative attention. If you come clean and apologize, I would be happy to support your return. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's just dandy; want to put me through another two years of this while I AGF my pollyanna arse into Wiki-oblivion? This is the third time she's done this socking ... that we know about ... I'm glad you're happy to welcome her return ... in the meantime, I work my arse off for Wiki, and had no clue I was working against Mattisse's grudges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Amended. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you are upset, and you hit upon the problem: Mattisse holds grudges, and she needs to let go of them, starting now. It's unlikely she will be unblocked unless she can do this. And we all know she isn't going to disappear, so it is reasonable to ask her to come clean under this account, rather than play whack-a-mole for the next several years. She obviously likes to edit here, but for some reason none of us can figure out, she has interpersonal conflicts that remain unresolved. I know that Wikipedia is not therapy, and given her past, I also know that it is very unlikely that Mattisse will be unblocked in the foreseeable future. But, I also think it is important to keep the lines of communication open. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you do that ... in the meantime, I've had a good lesson in the limitations of AGF, and no one should ever have to endure this again. wake up and smell the roses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm awake, and they smell wonderful. Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Mattisse is to be unblocked, I would recommend returning to User:Mattisse/Plan or the arbitration case and adding an explicit section about sock-puppets. Something along the line of any further use of sock-puppets will result in a permanent ban from wikipedia. Mattisse seems to need very strict boundaries with clearly spelt out consequences.--Salix (talk): 11:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose lifting this block under any circumstances. This user has displayed a long-term pattern of accepting consequences and conditional returns, only to walk away from mentors and return to previous editing behavior at the drop of a hat. We should no longer accommodate this user. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am astounded to wake to this, and to see that one mentor is questioning the block,[2], that others are discussing conditions for possible unblock (above) and Philcha is proposing a revision to the Mattisse's Plan that would actually have the effect of preventing her from ever being indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.[3]

  • To quickly review the situation, Mattisse is subject to an July 2009 arbcom mandated plan which places behavioural limits on Mattisse including avoidance of assumptions of bad faith, personalizing conflict, disruptive point-making and questioning the motivations of others. She has had several mentors/advisors working with her. A clarification of the Arb Com motions in December 2009 noted requirements that she "not make any remark about another editor on Wikipedia that could be seen as negative without first consulting her mentors/advisors" and placed her under conduct probation for one year. The closing comments of two arbitrators warned her about the seriousness of any repetition of problematic behaviour.
  • Mattisse also has a long history of creating impermissible, abusive sockpuppets,[4] starting in 2006 and most recently, until this incident, in August 2009 when she was blocked for two weeks for creating sockpuppets to attack another user.[5] Now it appears that Mattisse has created two four new sockpuppets, three of were used separately to edit Venezuelan articles where SandyGeorgia, an editor with whom she has been in past conflict, has been active. The user:Charles Rodriguez puppet denied being a sockpuppet[6], and two pretended to be new editors [7][8] and engaged in a series of posts on the talkpages of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary), Hugo Chavez and on the Rodriguez user talkpage including [9][10] [11][12][13][14][15][16] which break multiple aspects Mattisse's Plan (assumptions of bad faith, personalizing of issues, questioning of motivations etc). And one also presumes that she did not, as she is required to do, contact her mentors/advisors before making the negative comments about others, or indeed about creating the socks themselves. If these edits had made under her own account they would have certainly attracted alerts to her mentors, and I presume action from them. These sockpuppets were clearly used to evade scrutiny and to circumvent sanctions, including conduct probation imposed by Arbcom.

In my view a very long block, even an indefinite block, is appropriate. Enough is enough. I personally always try to hold out some hope for eventual rehabilitation, though it is instructive to check old versions of Mattisse's talkpage (see this one, for example, that I picked at random from 2006 [17]), and see how little has changed in the years she has edited here. But if it an unblock does occur, I suggest that this does not happen for long time (a year?) and only with very stringent conditions. --Slp1 (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no way to spin this. I don't like to comment on intent but it is fairly obvious that at least one account actively harassed one of Mattisse's "enemies". Using alternative accounts deceptively, and in a manner that avoids scrutiny, is something that all editors know is a strict no-no. I don't know what length of block is appropriate, but clearly, to the extent that it is a two-way street, mentorship is pretty much a dead deal here. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to slp1, at the time Philcha and myself woke up there was little info about the block, we did not even know user:Charles Rodriguez was the sock. So it was right at that time to question the block. I do not now question the block which is entirely appropriate. I do also agree with slp1's analysis of the ways in which she broke her plan.
The question is how long the block should be for and whether the block should become a permant ban. I guess this will be a question for Arbcom rather than here. When considering a ban the good does need to be weighted against the bad as she has consistently made voluminous good edits, we would loose these with a ban. With Mattisse it has always been a case of damage limitation, and I think the mentoring system is getting better at reducing the damage caused.--Salix (talk): 17:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This website has a limited pool of editors who are able and willing to mentor well. Less than a week ago one editor asked me for the third time to mentor him; he's under arbitration sanction too and has been searching for a mentor for months without success; he isn't socking. The team of people who mentored Mattisse deserve wholehearted thanks for doing their best. There's a proposal up at the ChildofMidnight workshop which perhaps they would look at and consider helping with. Mattisse has gotten as many chances as any editor receives; other people who are productive content contributors could also use assistance. Durova412 18:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, that's all true, but some of us would like some closure. Mattisse was helped by a great many people for many years and for it to finally come to this is of no surprise. The only thing I can conclude is that when she recently announced she was giving up on her plan, she was going to try and get herself indefinitely blocked on purpose. But to what end? Does she think this is the only way to get attention? It doesn't make any sense to us, and it would help greatly if Mattisse could explain herself. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this block is unreasonable. It should come as no surprise because Mattisse has considered me someone opposed to her in the past. I'll be honest in saying that no one on this site has challenged my personal goal to treat others with more respect than they treat me more than Mattisse. I have been the object of what I consider to be undeserved attention and have, for the most part, not risen to behave in kind. My personal involvement aside, I think we're past the point of instructing a user who claims she has no knowledge of what actions are wrong and forbidden. I cannot believe an editor as intelligent as Mattisse cannot discern for herself what is unacceptable, and the level of basic instruction that has been thrust upon her mentors is simply unfair. We have thus far allowed behavior in an fully functional adult that we would not in adolescent editors, and continuing to allow it is beginning to seem contemptuous to the editors who Mattisse has unfairly targeted. Mattisse has created more than 550 articles. We must all face the end of our tenure on Wikipedia in whatever form it comes. She has reason to be proud of what she has created, but the resources of this site are unreasonably being directed toward an editor who is unable to monitor herself the way everyone else is expected to. --Moni3 (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that it's time to switch gears here, now that more of us are aware that Mattisse is unlikely or unable to change. Is there any other editor with this history of socking and this kind of block log who is not site banned? Sockpuppeteers are unlikely to stop socking. Isn't it time we begin to focus on defending the Wiki instead of defending Mattisse? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, I can't believe that list of sockpuppets. They're only the ones that have been discovered though of course. I really do think that Mattisse has probably stepped way over the line with her recent games, and it's clear that despite the best efforts and intentions of her mentors nothing changed, and in fact she was deceiving them. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I share the view that Mattisse has crossed a significant line here in her disruptive edits, her talk page now is not the best time and place to discuss it.
Arbitrators need the time now to decide what to do in the long term. Mattisse needs the space here to comment if she wishes too. I have made a few comments on my initial view in other fora. Lets all try to minimize any fallout. Geometry guy 21:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to make any further comment Geometry guy, either here or elsewhere, other than to say that I'm really saddened it's come to this. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattisse. I'm not an expert on your editing or your history, but when I checked the other day it seemed like you were working away in good faith on various articles. What's the story on the other accounts you were using? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest moving this discussion to a more public forum. That is, if there is anything to discuss, which is up to Mattisse, I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Centralized discussion is at the Alerts page of Mattisse's plan; someone may want to move all of this to there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Faith-based community

An article that you have been involved in editing, Faith-based community, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith-based community. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to the community and want to account for my behavior

I am deeply regretful of my behavior and believe that I owe not only a huge apologize but a sincere effort to come clean regarding my sock puppets. The following is an attempt to do so, with thanks to Laser brain's Sandbox for corraling the data.

2006

I admit that I had sockpuppets which were caught September 1, 2006, not all of which I can account for as others were using my computers, but for which I will take responsibility.

I started editing on Wikipedia in May of 2006, and created my first sock puppet shortly after User:NothingMuch who edited from May to September 1, 2006 and made 125 edits in that time, 115 of which are live. My subequent sock puppets were

These sockpuppets ended when I was blocked for 24 hours on September 2, 2006.

Beginning in July, 2006 I was repeated harassed by User:999, User:Hanuman Das and User:Ekajati and others that were found to be sock puppets Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence, and User:Rosencomet was cautioned regarding COI. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Proposed decision in March, 2007. To me this is serious harassment. User:Hanuman Das followed me to 40 articles in one day, for example.

User:Jefferson Anderson, who was in the middle of a Check user as one of Ekajati's sock puppets (See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson) when he finally retired, so therefore he was never labeled.

Numerous RFCs and ANI complaints were brought against me by these now banned socks, beginning in the summer of 2006 and continuing until they were banned in March 2007.

2007 - No sockpuppets

2008 - No sockpuppets

2009

In August, 2009, I admit that I created sock puppet for the sole purpose of making a point to User:Bishonen about her sock puppets. I created:

I also created in October, 2009

  • User:Mr. Unsigned Not worth it (who made 13 edits between October 2009 and February 25, 2010, one to a Venezuelan related article, and three to a Venezuelan talk page that were disruptive to SandyGeorgia.)

I was under a lot of stress from harassment from from User:Disinfoboxman and others. For example, I provided evidence in the motion regarding User:Geogre decided August 1, 2009 by Arbcom regarding his abuse of his User:Utgard Loki. I saw User:Bishonen using her socks and I wanted to call attention to that. I realize now that I should not have done that.

2010

Sock puppets of mine in 2010:


However, I completely deny that the following are mine:

They do not fit my pattern of editing in any of my socks. User:Zengar Zombolt goes back to July 2006 and would have been caught in the September 1, 2006 block of me. It is not possible to have socks that are not caught in a block. User:GetOutFrog was previously found to be a sock of User:Zengar Zombolt, but that archive was deleted today here.

Further, User:Ashton 29, User:Youshotandywarhol, or User:Chaele are not my sock puuppets, as is being hypothesized on the basis that they edit film articles. Although it is wrong to have sock puppets, and I recognize that, I have not vandalized articles or added poor or unsourced information. Except for the two mistaken tags noted by SandyGeorgia, my tagging of articles has been correct, if not always convenient. I have nothing to do with Arizona, don't live anywhere near Arizona, don't know anyone there and do not edit Arizona articles.

Feedback

I welcome any insights into my editing behavior.

I believe that my need to create socks is born of stress. For example, in the summer and fall of 2006 I was plagued by being attacked by particular vicious socks, my articles were deleted etc. by the sock puppets in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati. The socks were discovered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Proposed decision.

—mattisse (Talk) 20:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to provide more feedback, but have one simple question for now: how did you create Talking image (talk · contribs) at 22:43 on 1 March, after your block? Geometry guy 21:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got a new internet service provider. Completely new. But that is not something I can do more than once. It is huge trouble and doesn't solve the problem of being blocked, as I am blocked again quickly on my new one. Creating socks is not something I do for fun. I do it out of immense frustration. I was incredibly stupid. I see that this is not a route that can continue. I am not very good at socking, as I am too predictable. —mattisse (Talk) 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How did you manage to get a new ISP within hours of being blocked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was something I doing anyway, for other reasons. It just happened to occur within that time frame. —mattisse (Talk) 21:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain, then, why the autoblock caught two different IP addresses on one of your new accounts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see what the addresses were, so I have no idea what was going on or how that could have happened. —mattisse (Talk) 22:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC) —mattisse (Talk) 23:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you denying that User:Orangehead is you? Hipocrite (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orangehead was recognized as my granddaughter at the time. Her page was deleted because she was underage, as I recall. —mattisse (Talk) 22:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the request by Orangehead to have her account deleted. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the point is here. It's everyone else's fault that you've created so many socks? tedder (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, for our convenience, would you please state clearly which of the accounts in my sandbox were either fully or partially in control of your grandchildren? Are there any other than Orangehead? --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know from personal knowledge. I am accepting that the Check user was correct and that those accounts were mine. Does it really matter at this point? This was four years ago, and I couldn't figure it out then. I will accept responsibility for all that are said to be mine. —mattisse (Talk) 22:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind my asking, is this you or a grandaughter? Fainites barleyscribs 23:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well, apparently it was her, but I do not know how she comes up with that stuff. —mattisse (Talk) 23:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few missing from User:Laser brain/Sandbox LiftWaffen (talk · contribs), BlackHak (talk · contribs), Charles Rodriguez (talk · contribs) also Timmy12 (talk · contribs). Would you care to clarify. --Salix (talk): 23:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LiftWaffen (talk · contribs) and BlackHak (talk · contribs) are in Laser brain's sandbox, but they are not confirmed by Check user, according to him. I am hesitant to add ones that are not Check user, as just today 5 sock puppets were added to me who are definitely not my socks, even though they went through Check user. So, now I am doubtful about the whole Check user process again. On Charles Rodriguez (talk · contribs) I would like to see what he has done wrong, as I am uncertain, given the way sock puppets are being assigned to me to "clear the drawer". Timmy12 (talk · contribs) was not a sock puppet. —mattisse (Talk) 23:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, what started out as "coming clean" has quickly devolved into evasiveness. I care less about the older ones, but I refuse to believe you are "uncertain" about whether you operated various account. Did you or did you not operate the Charles Rodriquez account? --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not but I know who did. I guess I would like not to be involved in the blocking of a good faith editor, but I will accept it if necessary. I would think Wikipedia should encourage good editors, not drive off those who contribute. Disheartening. And it is unnerving that 5 new socks were added today that are categorically not my accounts. It makes me lose faith in Check user. I see that it is misused. —mattisse (Talk) 23:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, am I reading correctly that you are saying that another editor created and operated the Charles Rodriguez account, and you know who it was? That casts a damning shadow over other editors, since at least another Venezuela editor posted about having received supportive e-mail against me. If you do not come clean on that account, you are casting a shadow over several other Venezuela editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I suggested my neighbor get interested in Wikipedia as a way of getting me interested again in content. He gave it a try and chose what he edited. I do not know what that has to do with another Venezuela editor receiving supportive emails. What is the connection? I know that Steve was in email contact with him. Are you saying it is Steve? I don't get what you are saying. I don't think CR considers himself a "Venezuela editor". I certainly don't. —mattisse (Talk) 00:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that Charles Rodriguez was your neighbor? And he used your computer? And he happened to choose to have a conflict with me ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to look at the specifics of his editing. I did not know that he approached you and provoked you into conflict. If he did do that, then I will have another opinion of him. Is that what happened?
I would like to know who the "Venezuela editor" is who said he got supportive emails from CR. Who is it? —mattisse (Talk) 00:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Can we put an end to this sad charade? I can clear up any uncertainty Mattisse or others may have. Charles Rodriguez (talk · contribs) was clearly Mattisse; this and this are distinctive. Orangehead (talk · contribs) was clearly Mattisse; if Mattisse didn't write this herself, I'll eat my hat. The tone, diction, thought processes, and content are clearly Mattisse's, even putting aside the technical evidence.

    It seems abundantly clear that Mattisse's continued participation here is deeply unhealthy, both for us and (probably) for her as well. Given the previous and apparently ongoing deception and evasiveness, it would be incredibly naive for us to take any statement made here at face value. Under these circumstances, we should do the same thing we should always do when faced with someone who is a poor fit for this particular collaborative project. We should firmly and politely ask them to leave, with a minimum of fuss. If they persist in creating alternate accounts, then we should block those as they are identified, again with a minimum of fuss.

    I see absolutely nothing good coming of further questioning here, and frankly the responses are increasingly depressing in their transparent evasiveness and deceitfulness. It's time to be done with this and for all of us, Mattisse included, to move on. Whether or not she does, we can at least set an example. MastCell Talk 00:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Mattisse has caused me to CU innocent editors, then it's time for her to be blocked from editing her own talk page. MC, do you think I should withdraw the CU or let it ride? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree that it is necessary and desirable for everyone's sake for Mattisse to step away from the computer and from Wikipedia, under any account name, for a good long time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay folks, move along

I think it is pretty clear where this is going, and no further comment is required or expected from anyone other than Mattisse, who may wish to identify any further alternate accounts/socks. (Not all of them have been tagged as socks of Mattisse.) Mattisse, if you need to email me about Charles Rodriguiez because, as you state, it is another editor, please do so promptly. Risker (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Mattisse's ability to edit this page. Pursuant to MastCell's and Newyorkbrad's sentiments above, I believe our continuing to field circular queries and evasive responses to be destructive at best. Mattisse is free to e-mail Risker or other involved parties with further information. I would like suggestions on where to move User:Laser brain/Sandbox for full visibility so adjustments can be made as needed. The main purpose of the page is to aid in spotting additional socks as they become active by matching them with the patterns I've identified. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Under what policy are you removing Mattisse's ability to edit her own talk page? And under what policy did you remove her comments from her own talk page? A bit confuzzled, to quote someone or other. And given your plans to move evidence against her out of your own userspace, might it have been better had you asked another admin to look at whether to remove her talk page access? After all, her comments which you removed amounted to a denial of a few of the socks at issue, and does it look right that you're both building evidence against her and removing her denials? Note: I am in no way defending Mattisse. But I think there are questions of fairness here.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking policy allows for the removal of Talk page access in the case of abuse. In this case, as I explained above, the circular queries, evasive responses, and denials are an abuse of everyone's time. They have lead nowhere in the past, and they are leading nowhere now. With all due respect, this has been going on for four years. She always denies a few or all of the socks, or blames grandkids, neighbors, and so on. I am not building evidence against Mattisse. I am building a timeline and patterns analysis to assist admins in identifying future socks. It will be much simpler for the CU to be requested when editors can quickly match the socks with existing patterns. Everything on that list is a previously identified sock, most confirmed by CU, with one IP address. It's only evidence of what she's already done. She is free to email people, obviously, but I do not believe this should take up any more of the community's time. I am of course only one voice in the crowd, but I believe I have acted in the best interests of the project. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your characterization of WP:BLOCK is perhaps oversimplified. It says, "This option should not be unchecked by default; editing of the user's talk page should only be disabled in the case of continued abuse of the talk page." I would hesitate to call that "continued abuse", especially since no warning was issued that there had been talk page abuse and further abuse would result in a removal of ability. I have no problem with your building the evidence and I applaud your diligence, but that goes to my point that probably you should not have been the one to block her ability to edit this page, nor do I think you were justified in removing comments which, among other things, contained a reply to an arbitrator. I'm not entirely wild about your, um, strong request to Coldplay Expert that he remove his comment on this page. The point is, I don't doubt your good faith after all this time, but I think you may have let frustration get in the way of doing things the right way. It happens. But I think people have gone to great pains to make sure Mattisse is fairly dealt with, and I'm uncertain that this helps there.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I can see where this whole thing is going, I do think that removing talk page access is close to 'unseemly haste'. There is no particular reason to respond to a block user's comments and removing talk page privileges unilaterally only obfuscates what, to me anyway, seems a fairly clear issue. Just my thoughts. --RegentsPark (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've got no objection to the block. But the removal of talk page access was over the top. I cannot see how comments by her here, with no unblock request even, constituted "abuse" or disruption. Was anyone forced to comment here repeatedly?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Wehwalt, perhaps your definition of abuse is oversimplified. It does not necessarily need to consist of a string of profanity and name-calling, but in this case, a deliberate and multi-faceted obfuscation of the truth: in socking, in denying the socks, in blaming sock creation on harassment and stress, in creating phantoms and family members to displace blame and create doubt. Allowing this duplicity to continue is contemptuous to those of us who have been targeted by Mattisse. She clearly needs to disengage from Wikipedia. You know this. This is not healthy, to continue a campaign of disjointed, confused aggression like this. She wasn't trying to edit a beloved topic or insert a POV, she was using these socks to harass other editors over and over. Enough is enough. Help her disengage and the rest of us try to recover. I have serious doubts if I will ever have the enthusiasm I had for this project before Mattisse targeted me. Mattisse needs some peace. She will not find it here. Christ knows I need some peace, too. I don't think I'll ever find it here again either. --Moni3 (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Sorry, gentleman, but look at my sandbox. That's four years of abuse, warnings, blocks, unblocks, attempts at help, mentoring, then more blocks. Patterns. She hasn't been warned? Nothing will be gained by allowing these disturbing lines of inquiry and denial to continue here; things will only be lost as holes are dug ever-deeper. The arbs are aware of the full situation and they have stated they have all the information needed. They are aware that Mattisse has admitted to and denied various socks. She has channels to communicate further admissions and denials to the arbs. I believe I've done the right thing. RegentsPark, nothing is being obfuscated. The situation is abundantly clear to everyone here including the arbs. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand everyone's points here, on all sides, but seriously: mountain --> molehill. The arbs are watching this page closely, clearly haven't missed a thing (NYB was right on another issue a bit ago), Risker and NYB have both stated the arbs have what they need, so we should be thinking here about Mattisse. I think that's what Laser's action does: no good comes from her continuing to post here, it's time for her to step back for her own good, and that is the sentiment expressed by NYB. If the arbs disagreed, they would revert and unblock; let it lie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Perhaps obfuscation is the wrong word. What I mean is that the situation is not effectively resolved unilaterally but needs an overt consensus. (Perhaps that will emerge if enough editors endorse laser brain's talk page access cut-off.) (Disclosure, I have received an email from Mattisse but choose not to respond directly to her.) --RegentsPark (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of 2002 Tampa plane crash

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is 2002 Tampa plane crash. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002 Tampa plane crash. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn....

You...kicked...one of Wikipedia's most...prominent editors...damn...ow...I missed a lot while I was out...goodbye Mattisse :( (psst get a new ip and a new account I hear they can't track em like that. And then get over this bullshit) ResMar 00:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Ace record label.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Ace record label.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Aristocrat records.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Aristocrat records.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Logosnks.gif

A tag has been placed on File:Logosnks.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe they kicked Mattisse out

I'm really shocked that Wikipedia would kick out such an amazing, productive editor. Mattisse has done such wonderful things for this community for YEARS. Hundreds of contributions a day and you kick her out? For what reason? I'm just shocked. Shocked and appalled. - Cyborg Ninja 02:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to see you go like this. Wehwalt and I did everything he could. However it was just not good enough. Policy breaking or not. I do hope that make the occasional edit as an IP. Not as Matisse but as the human behind it. You cannot ban a person, just the account and any relation to it.--White Shadows you're breaking up 02:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Blind boy fuller remastered.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Blind boy fuller remastered.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Blue thumb records.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Blue thumb records.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Bluesvill prestiage records.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bluesvill prestiage records.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Casablanca001.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Casablanca001.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Oasis label.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Oasis label.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Buddah records famous.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Buddah records famous.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Coral records crickets holly.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Coral records crickets holly.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For which article? --Philcha (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

You are receiving this because you have commented on either Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, or Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory in the past two years; all such commenters have received this notice. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia#Merger proposal. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Yazoo 1041.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Yazoo 1041.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access

Jointly from myself and Wehwalt: We are unblocking Mattisse's talk page so that she may, if she desires, propose terms on which it might be possible to reinstate her. This is in consideration of the passage of time since her block, and her work at WikiSource. An indefinite block is not an eternal block, and the community should be able to hear Mattisse should she ask for reinstatement. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Andy and I have done our part; the next step is squarely in Mattisse's hands, should she choose to take it (blinks) Mixed metaphor, there, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this is a timely and sensible step, reopening a public channel of communication, whether it be used or not. Geometry guy 00:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the Wikipedia community

I'd like to extend my deep thanks to the admins who unblocked my talk page.

I am asking the community to consider accepting me back as an editor.

During the past months away from Wikipedia I believed I learned a lot about myself through thinking over what had occurred during my more than four years on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, I have had a rewarding and productive experience at Wikisource, where I will continue to edit regardless of what happens here.

If I am accepted back into the community, you may feel comfortable there will not be a reoccurrence of my objectionable behavior. I am very sorry for my role in what happened.

I'd like to ask community members for their thoughts on what conditions I should ask to be reinstated.

I should note that I will immediately undertake to be topic-banned from FAC and FAR, and articles and discussions related to FAC and FAR, for one year at minimum, longer if the community so desires. Further, there are certain people I intend to avoid at all costs; I hope they will do me the great favor of avoiding me as well.

I am very open to other suggestions before I file the unblock request.

Sincerely,

Mattisse

Mattisse, I believe your last block that I can find record of for sockpuppetry was June 12 (records weren't kept after that to my knowledge).

I would be interested in your feedback on these accounts, blocked on 30 September 2010 as a returning sockpuppeting editor:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me evidence that these are my socks. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zengar Zombolt/Archive is an example of false accusations that were verified originally. My mentor on this issue is User:John Vandenberg who is a check user and able to determine whether I am using sock puppets. I go by what he says. I have assured him that I will not use sockpuppets. Obviously I am dead meat if I use socks now. —mattisse (Talk) 01:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, one of the past issues with you was that you didn't read critically when you were upset, and if you are to come back, that would have to change. I did not say they were your socks; I asked you to comment on them, and gave you the opportunity to do so calmly and either assert or deny that they are yours. You actually have done neither in the post above. I did not ask if you "will use" socks; I asked you to comment on these socks that were active less than two months ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My worry is the number of editors who would scrutinise your every movement. On WikiSource you don't have as much history so there are less people watching you. It would be a much more pressured environment for you. Can you remain calm in these circumstances? --Salix (talk): 00:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My perspective on Wikipedia is much different now. I have enjoyed immensely Wikisource where, granted, the atmosphere is much friendlier and encouraging, so my editing energies can safely go there. (I have made close to 9,000 edits there with no problems and certainly no attacks or negative feedback from editors.) I don't intend to get involved in the award culture on Wikipedia such FAC, FAR or other areas where editors are competitively vested in collecting awards. My first interest is fixing up articles that I would like to link to Wikisource articles, but are in such bad condition that I don't link. Secondly, I would create articles that are needed for explanations for Wikisource articles. I will stay away from any article that belongs to a vested editor, where an editor lists and article under articles "I wrote" or refers to "my articles" in posts. I will make it a practice to check histories for that kind of editor. Outside the FAC/FAR arena there is not much of a problem, I don't think, if any at all. I have created over 600 articles in a multitude of subjects, mostly to fill in "missing links" on Wikipedia. I will continue with low key endeavors such as that. However, at the sign of any "push back" I will simply not continue editing the article or dealing with that editor, or even editing Wikipedia for a while. Also, my misery was generated by a small group of editors. I am hoping they will be proscribed from harassing me in an Arcom settlement. —mattisse (Talk) 01:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back and blaming your "misery" on "a small group of editors" isn't a good start at accepting responsibility for your socking and disruption. I hope that doesn't continue, or I will question the reasoning for allowing you to entertain us again. I believe part of welcoming you back should be you accepting responsibility and recognizing the need for a different approach. I'm not seeing that-- this feels like deja vu all over again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"... there are certain people I intend to avoid at all costs; I hope they will do me the great favor of avoiding me as well." Who are these other people? Unless you name names how can they know to avoid you? What if they choose not to avoid you? How will you react then? Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was suggested by an arbcom member. The suggestion was that I make no mentions on any pages regarding these editors, and they, likewise refrain from mentioning or engaging with me. There was a small group of editors (names have been discussed with the Arb) who continually "weigh in" on anything that has to do with me, who gratuitously continued to bring up my name on their talk pages long after I was banned, etc. e.g. [18] and in one case said I got a "moistie" every time I drove an editor off of Wikipedia. These editors considerably increased the strain on me and gave me the feeling that there was a small clique/cabal of editors determined to drive me off. These names have been mentioned to the Arb and it was indicated to me may be explicitly mentioned in any resolution with ArbCon. The feeling was that "those editors know who they are." —mattisse (Talk) 01:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Rodriguez (talk · contribs) was not me, and my edits to Bishonen's account were obvious jokes, the kind Bishonen and others get away with all the time. The fact is that many editors have alternate accounts and are condoned. However, I understand that I am held to a higher standard than the rest. —mattisse (Talk) 01:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Were ChrisCopo and Mr Unsigned not you either? They also followed me to Venezuela articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a followup to Malleus's question, I did not ask for ChrisCopo (talk · contribs), Charles Rodriguez (talk · contribs) or Mr. Unsigned Not worth it (talk · contribs) to follow me to Venezuela articles, nor did Bishonen ask for at least two accounts to follow her, so how will staying away from FAC and FAR help "certain people" "avoid" you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me the live fire test started about an hour ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me we're seeing the same logic that we've seen before. The post at 01:17 looks like yet another rehash of selective passages from the arb case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not consulted the arb case. My recent logic is from current extensive communications with an arb. Others, including arbs, have noted, and been disturbed by, certain inappropriate behavior by an editor toward me and others. —mattisse (Talk) 01:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can resolve my concerns by commenting on the sock list above, who were active less than two months ago. Alternately, I could ask User:John Vandenberg, or User:Risker, in whose block log they appear. Obviously, I don't want to be followed to my area of editing, and I'm sure that Wehwalt is equally concerned that we not welcome back an editor until we know if there was any socking of which we may not yet be aware, and by your assurances that you will not only stay away from FAC and FAR, but also editors from your past "list". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My fingers still work, Sandy, and I can "speak" for myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This won't be a surprise, my commenting here. I gave the "moistie" comment and I'm still ok with it. I think this is an exceedingly bad idea, evidenced already by Mattisse's replies and blaming others for her misery. Whatever. I'm not going to comment further on this; if the community makes a very bad decision and allows her to participate, super. If she has the good sense to stay away from the articles I write and my talk page, bully for me. Mattisse, you emailed me twice while you were blocked--under sock names. Don't ever email me again. Ever. --Moni3 (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Moni3. This really is just déja vu; blaming everyone else and accepting not even the slightest responsibility. At the very least this is a rather bad start. Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ready to say that yet; I'd like to see Wehwalt not stir the pot so we can get some answers and assurances. If Mattisse was socking less than two months ago, this should be quickly shut down. If she wasn't, Wehwalt stirring the pot isn't going to yield a calm discussion with Mattisse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I shall post as I see fit. Incidentally, you were greatly concerned about Mattisse's health, as I recall, as a reason for keeping her blocked. Shouldn't you at some point enquire about it?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"My fingers still work, Wehwalt, and I can 'speak' for myself." One thing at a time; too many edit conflicts will only frustrate Mattisse, and she has not yet answered my first question. Please stop stirring the pot-- that is not in Mattisse's best interest, and *she* can also speak for herself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I recall they taught us in law school "Saying it don't make it so." I had posted once before you mentioned my name, to comment that Mattisse's test of how she got along with hostile users was already under way.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse has also expressed concern about editors continuing to mention her, and that leads back to you-- many times over in recent months. Now, would you let Mattisse answer the questions or not? Edit conflicts will only frustrate. Were the Chris Copo and Mr Unsigned socks hers, what does she have to say about the sock list posted above, and will she stay away from editors on her "list"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go slow and take the long-term view

I supported the reopening this talk page to create a dialog. Such a dialog is doomed if it is regarded as a way to restore Mattisse's editing rights in the immediate future. It is also doomed if editors (Mattisse included) dwell on the past.

High speed dialog, as witnessed tonight, is going to go nowhere fast. For progress to be made, Mattisse needs to acknowledge all sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry and convince the community that nothing of the kind is ongoing, nor will it happen again. She also needs to accept that the encyclopedia will not always be what she wishes it to be, and she may have to sit on her hands and bite her tongue. If there is a possibility of return, it will take time to convince the community she is ready for it.

Expecting this all to be resolved in a few days chat is unrealistic, as is immediately ruling out any possibility of return. Personally, I would consider unblocking in less than a month to be premature no matter what transpires here, and that three months would be a more realistic timescale to reach an accommodation, if one happens at all. Take it slowly folks. Raise your concerns, seek mutual understandings, compromises, etc. There is plenty of time. Geometry guy 02:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and I encourage Mattisse not to be frustrated by edit conflicts and TMI, nor to feel she must respond immediately. I asked for one comment at the outset, and there is no urgency here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, Sandy, it might be wise to defer your questions on the socks and allow checkusers to weigh in? Their view will help lend weight to one side of the other on the sockpuppetry question. Fair?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to hear from other editors, other than those five or so ediors that are FAC related and can be expected to oppose. Since I swear to stay away from FAR and FAC (and am willing to be permanently banned from Wikipedia if I ever contribute to FAC or FAR again) I would like to hear the opinion of those not connected primarily with FAC. My FAC/FAR contributions, (FAC reviews and FAR input and improvement of articles) are over for good. What about the rest of the encyclopedia? What do editors think? (I believe I have contributed greatly to the other parts of the encyclopedia in multiple ways. I agree that I will never touch FAC or FAR again. But do others think that I should no be given a trial back? —mattisse (Talk) 02:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattisse&oldid=395099591"