Misplaced Pages

Voting System FAR

I have nominated Voting system for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Feinoha 21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams

On October 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (see the pageview stats) 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.

Swedish language refs

You had a go at trying to identify reference improvements for Swedish language recently, but I think your methods were somewhat blunt. I'm not against bolstering the referencing overall, but I think templates are really not the best way to deal with this. I believe it would be much better if you brought up in detail on the talkpage what you'd like to see improved.

Peter 21:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Have had horrible success in the past bringing up such on article talk pages, so I think I will skip it. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you wouldn't reconsider? I don't know what experiences you've had here, but I've always preferred proper discussion over anonymous and difficult-to-interpret template insertion. Dialogue is so much better to understand exactly what is or isn't required.

Peter 07:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but no. When an article is an FA, bringing up criticism on the talk page often brings attack and abuse. They are not like regular article talk pages when constructive suggestions are taken seriously. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 11:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Goya

Mattisse I have an FAC I would very much like you to look at. A careful, detailed review from you would be appreciated. I would relish the challenge of going up against your scalpels, I think it would lead to a much improved artice. Ceoil (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to go through it, though having no expert knowledge on Goya. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 14:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

More please. Ceoil (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is best if I do no more. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Commenting" class

(moved to monitoring page User:Mattisse/Monitoring#.22Commenting.22_class. This page is not for comments to my mentors/advisors. It is not a place to discuss me in the third person. Please supply specific diffs for all complaints. Per the arbitration decision, monitoring should concentrate recent behavior and not rehash old incidents. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Raven Ridge

On October 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Raven Ridge, 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) 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.

John Carter & Mattisse's Mentors.

(moved inappropriate comment to monitoring page User:Mattisse/Monitoring#John_Carter_.26_Mattisse.27s_Mentors. —mattisse (Talk) 20:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, it was not an "inappropriate comment." Giano has every right to be frustrated with his name being dredged up in nearly every discussion someone attempts about your behavior. And your continual removal of his posts to the monitoring page isn't helpful either. He's made it clear he doesn't want his name associated with that page. UnitAnode 20:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe I have raised Giano's name. If he has a beef with another editor, he should take it to that editor's talk page. I have previously requested that Giano not post here, and respectfully ask that he honor that request. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you really denying that you brought Giano and Bishonen's names into this? Seriously? UnitAnode 20:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And the primary reason he couldn't post on my page is that I explicitly requested it up front. As an admin, I guess he gives my requests more credit than he does those of Mattisse, who indicates that she had previously asked him to stay of her page. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not the right place, seriously. Find your source material somewhere else. --Moni3 (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And not a good place for advertising.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Links as opposed to body of comments from other pages

There is a good point that maybe just including links to comments on other pages, as opposed to the whole body of infmoration from those pages, would work just as well. It would probably decrease the heat on the monitoring page, because of the extra work involved in seeing the comments and by not displaying any "hot button" words on the page, and also make the page a lot shorter and easier to store in a single archive. Thinking down the road here, in the future, any new editor seeing a lot of archived pages there might react by thinking "Holy $&!*?! How bad is this woman?!" where one archive page wouldn't give that impression. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Test and List of Johnny Test characters

I thought I'd bring these to your attention as there is alot going on here. I would make drastic changes, but I've already cause quite a stur as it is. Sarujo (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am unable to do any copy editing anymore. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible DYKs

Just thought you might like to know. There are about 14000 works with at least the word "encyclopedia" prominently included in the public domain available at Google scholar here. John Carter (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I am a little at a loss how to turn an encyclopedia into a dyk. Any hints as to how to do it? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously, you can't. But each of those sources is at this point public domain. Which means, in the worst case scenario, you could take the content word for word from any one of the and add it to our article on the subject, if we have one. Like I've said elsewhere, we are missing a lot of articles, particularly about the non-English speaking world. And a lot of others are in fairly poor shape, Stubs and the like. With this, you could probably turn at least half of the articles which are basically "historic" in nature into real articles, by just adding the material from these sources. I was looking at one of the public domain books on the papacy, actually. About half of the articles we have on individual popes are right now stubs. With what in the public domain, considering history doesn't change that much over time, I think we could probably turn almost all of them into at least good C class articles. That's just one area I was noticing today, but there would be any number of others as well. Any state or country, I think I saw an encyclopedia of Virginia in there?, would welcome content regarding its historical political and cultural leaders, and improvement to the articles on its localities. Basically, find any subject that isn't too current that you find an interest in, use those sources and some other, more current ones, which you could probably get off the net, and I think you could probably turn virtually anything you wanted to into at least a good DYK, if you used multiple sources from there probably even at least a C class. And we've only got about 1 or 2 million stubs as we speak right now, so I think if you wanted to there would be more than enough to keep one occupied and keeping the DYK secton full for at least a few weeks, maybe even a few months. I guess it depends on how fast you can type. :) John Carter (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if material is in the public domain, it must either be quoted or rewritten in one's own words. Therefore, I only write articles on subjects that I know enough about, or can figure out, to write from scratch. I am not interested in doing an article otherwise. If you look at my dyk's or my article creations, you will see that they cover a wide range of topics, many weighted toward third world topics. But with each, I started with an interest in the topic. I have created hundreds of articles, almost all still basically in their original state, although some have undergone name changes. I no longer believe in the concept of Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia, which basically means I can only write articles on subjects that I am driven to learn about. My ability to copy edit has diminished also. I used to be able to copy edit any article on any topic for the joy of copy editing. Now I have to be motivated by a genuine interest in the topic, and cannot do it as "for Wiki hire" so to speak. Meaning, I am not willing to copy edit upon demand like I used to do. There was one editor who regularly copy/pasted my edits from his user space into his own article in the main space. After a while, I refused to copy edit his FACs any more, which caused a brouhaha. I think I was being regarded as a copy edit work horse. I'm no longer willing to do that. However, I appreciate your suggestions, as I would love to feel about Misplaced Pages as I did in the olden days when I really cared and believed in it. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt you. That's why I said find a subject that interests you up front. But there are so many subjects out there. For all I know, as a slight opera fan, I could probably put together about 30 to 40 articles on the more notable performers of Wotan in Wagner's Ring cycle on the basis of the material there. And I think most people would consider that a fairly minor topic. If nothing else, you might consider just paging through JSTOR, Google books or Google scholar and see if there are any subjects that aren't covered very well that you find interesting. We could use all of it, believe me. Anyway, if there are any subjects in there that do interest you, I think everyone would be more than happy to see you add whatever you wanted to from them. User:Himalayan Explorer, like I've said before, is one of our leaders in developing content from less-well-covered areas, and I'm sure if you wanted to help develop some content regarding such areas, I think he would have even more sources which could be used. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John Carter. In fact I'd go further - find a topic you really, irrespective of whether it's covered already; there are always gaps to be filled. It's struck me a few times that much of your work at WP has been helping others - it's time to do something just for your own satisfaction. --Philcha (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That is what I have been doing lately with the dyk's. I have no desire to put substantial work into anything for Misplaced Pages again at this point. It is easier to do dyk's than to copy edit someone else's article. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 11:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is probably kind of off-topic, but I'm going to say it anyway. Last year, I pretty much spent six or seven months (I forget now) laid up as an invalid because of seizures. As you can probably guess, I had a lot of time to read then. You would probably be very surprised how weak some of the content we have one a lot of the big "controversial" material we have is. Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven is something I read I believe three times during that period. It is a really extraordinary book on Mormon society and history, and religious extremism in general. We have virtually nothing from that book here yet. Some years ago, almost all the adult males in Pitcairn Island were convicted of statutory rape by the UK. This was because the social morays of the Bounty sailors and Tahitian women (who may have been Caucasians?) were and are markedly different than those of most other people. Even people like Colleen McCullough are on record as defending the men. We have virtually nothing on that subject here either.

I am, pretty much, a religious scholar/fanatic. As such, I know just how much real trash there is out there on the net about a lot of these subjects, much of which often appears, unfortunately, on the first page of the Google search results. The Priory of Sion, the Protocols of the Elders of Sion, the third secret of Fatima, the list goes on. Even some subjects more important than those are still barely covered here. Falun Gong has millions of practicioners in China, and several thousand have been basically imprisoned and killed because of their belief in it. We have maybe a dozen articles total relating to the subject, and I created one of them only a month or so ago.

And the same can, unfortunately, be said basically about several nations and areas of the world. Did you know there are at least a few countries out there whose main article is still at "Start" class? And some of them, particlarly those not as well-known in the English language world, don't have many if any other artcles in better shape. Granted, some of them are not ones which strike many people as interesting. But the often millions of people who live there would very definitely be interested in knowing the rest of the world could at least find out something reliable about them. Right now, in a lot of cases, that is, really, work to do.

You may not believe in wikipedia. Fine. I'm not sure I do either. But I believe in aking it possible for people to be able to obtain something trustworthy on subjects of importance. Yes, I know Britannica is online, in a few languages. We are in hundreds. And most all of the other ones depend on us to provide a lot of their sourcing. Whether I myself believe in it or not, I know there are a lot of people out there, yes, including some of the broadcast media, who, basically, do believe in it and rely on it for background information. Right now, for a lot of the world, the background information we give is kind of weak. In those cases, I honestly believe that this is one of those places where a single individual could make a very real difference in the world.

Now, for all the grandiose mouthings above, you might wonder why on earth I waste so much of my own time in tagging and assessing articles and bitching about the conduct of others. Because, basically, I know my own writing sucks. There are a lot of other things that need to be done here, however, and I can use some of my time doing them and thus free up time for others who are better writers than me. You are one of those people.

In conclusion, all I really want to say is that, if you do find something that does interest you, about which you think the world could be better informed than it is, and you don't mind making the very real effort to produce material for it, I honestly believe you almost certainly would make the world a really better place by improving the quality of the information out there on some of the important, but often obscure, subjects. If a hurricane ever hits Tokelau and does a lot of damage, I'm pretty much certain that a lot of the press will wind up coming here to find out what Tokelau is. Right now, they won't find out that much. If that, or any other subject of similar real importance but weak coverage, is something that interests you and you wouldn't mind putting the work in to write up, I very much believe that your efforts would have results much beyond just getting a DYK, GA, or whatever for.

Anyway, shutting up now. John Carter (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I used to enjoy reviewing and copy editing FACs untill driven away from there by accusations about my comments about a couple of articles from a very few editors. I used to enjoy reviewing GAN, until driven away by accusations aout my comments about a couple of articles by a very few editors. I used to enjoy evaluating dyk hooks, but now I am under attack about that, an attack I don't at this point understand. So I will desist from reviewing hooks for now. The point is that just a couple of insistent editors is enough to drive a productive editor from Misplaced Pages chores. Is this in the best interest of Misplaced Pages? Regads, —mattisse (Talk) 02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Neither was it either of the two times so far that partisans have driven off almost all other editors from the Falun Gong material. In that case, both parties wound up driving away pretty much everybody else at different times. And, yes, if it weren't for Vassayana actively trying to recruit new editors, I think it might have ultimately been permanent the second time. And I wasn't talking about any of those subjects you mention above. We have over three million articles now, yes. Over half of them are, frankly, at best unimpressive. And I'm being nice there. You've been creating articles for DYKs a lot recently. Yes, I know, like we both have said, sometimes that's work. If I remember right, I had to leave messages on six project talk pages to find out where a certain town with a Nestorian bishop actually was, because we didn't have the spelling used in the source I had anywhere, and I mean anywhere, in wikipedia, I looked. 0 matches.

And I'm not saying anything against improvement of content either. But, in a lot of cases, we don't even have the basic skeletons of these subjects to ue as an outline yet. Yes, if we want to focus on the past, and how we were wronged in the past, we can. I did that a lot while I was laid up with seizures, believe me. ;) Particularly considering they were due to head trauma from a rather excessive mugging. But don't focus on what's in the best interests of the project here, or what isn't, because we all know that any time you get a lot of people together you will get conflict. In developing the groundwork of some content, though, there won't be many people there to conflict with. I developed really poor articles on some of the Coptic patriarchs and other saints/beati/whatever, and in most of those cases there is no controversy or conflict whatsoever. People were more than happy to just see some of these articles become more than just one or two sentences, they weren't going to complain about what was added.

A lot of these regions of the world, and countries, are, basically, even now still more or less verbatim from the CIA World Factbook. Some of the articles on religions, which I know better, are often, basically, verbatim copies from sources not even as reliable as that one. If you found that you had any interest in any of these topics, and there are a lot of them still, I doubt if much anyone would say anything other than "thank you" for working on them. And, yes, while preparing the "showpieces" is very valuable, particular for the editors working on them, preparing the groundwork is often even more important. A lot of the groundwork for a lot of subjects isn't even completely there yet. You have the experience of preparing "showpiece" articles, which would be very valuable in seeing that some of the articles which right now aren't even close to that level get there. And, in a lot of cases, there wouldn't be anyone objecting to seeing it developed. Pitcairn Island, which I mentioned above, is really, dare I say, a bit of an embarrasent to me here right now. I remember reading so much about it, and we've got virtually nothing about any of it. And it isn't really that unique around here, either. In a lot of these places, the relevant articles don't get touched much, if at all, and basically no one knows about them. The Falun Gong article I wrote is one I did nominate, and get, a DYK for. I nominated it in the hope that, maybe, seeing the article on the main page might draw some interest to the subject. I don't know if it did, but there are a lot of people working at least a little on the content now, when there were maybe four total earlier.

If there were any topics you did find interesting that weren't well developed, if you provided a bit of a focus for others to collect around, you might well be able to actually make the content on those topics something we could all be proud of. And I mean the entire content, not just those articles that are close to DYK, GA, or FA. That is, of course, if you found any subjects that really interest you. All I'm really asking is that you, basically, keep your eyes open. If there is one editor around here who basically knows the extant WikiProjects, I think a lot of people might say it was me. I've created and at least laid the foundations for a lot of them. I'd be more than willing to offer any help I might be able to on any topic, whether "Project" size or not, that you thought you'd like to work on. Like I said, my writing sucks, and being given something to do that I can do fairly well makes me feel a bit useful once in a while too. If you ever do find any topics that really do interest you, and you want a little help finding or structuring the content, plesse let me know. I'd be more than happy to do whatever I could. John Carter (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And, yes, you were good as a reviewer. You also occasionally engaged in behavior which came very close to your being blocked or banned (I forget which) in the argument with Cirt. I am not trying to be pointed here, but please remember that the reason you have been more or less asked away from some reviews is because of the recurring tendency you displayed of disruption there. It may only have been a small percentage of your total activity, but that small percentage might be the only FA or GA that particular editor brings up for nomination that year. And, for the review process to succeed, it has to, at the very least, not discourage people from nominating articles. If it becomes unpleasant, they may well not nominate any more articles, whether they qualify or not, and that would be very bad for the process and the encyclopedia. Particularly for such a procedure, it is vitally important that the people involved don't come away with a negaative impression of it. From what I remember having read at the time, there were some fairly widely held reservations about your conduct there. I'm not saying this to just criticize you. But there are some things which we are good at, that we perhaps become too involved in, and ultimately it could wind up being to our own disadvantage to continue doing them. Personally, if I had almost been banned because of a review, I would avoid reviews completely from that point forward if there was anything else I thought worth doing. Evidently, you do see writing new articles as being worthwhile. There is generally vey little controversy in that, except maybe in very rare circumstances finding that there's another article on the subject under another name. The ArbCom pointed out that you evidently become stressed during difficult reviews, and that, at least once in a while, you tend to take the comments of others as more personally directed at you than they might have been intended. That doesn't do any good for anyone. There wouldn't be anything like that controversy and contentiousness in creating new articles or developing stubs and other bad articles to a better level. And, yes, you might it much less stressful and more pleasant for yourself.

I know how difficult it can be to give up on something you really like doing and do at least fairly well (there's not that much I personally am really good at), and I know you were fond of reviewing and generally very good at it. The problem was the comparatively few instances when your actions became disruptive. There might not be the same excitement about creating or developing currently weak artiles, and the obvious sense of accomplishment might not be as extreme either. Yes, in some cases, people might never notice the new work for months or years. Some of the geographical stubs on the UAE hadn't been touched since I created them, and might at this point only get a few hits a month. But, if and when circumstances change and they become prominent in the news, then everyone will be grateful to have it.

Like I tried to indicate with my first username, "warlordjohncarter", I can be more than a bit of a belligerent bastard. I know from experience that there are some things I have been pretty good at in general that I now avoid because of the occasional negative consequencs for me or others. Maybe the time has come to admit that, while you were good at reviews, you might have been a little too personally invested in them at times, and that as a result they weren't as much of a positive to you peronally as you might have told yourself. God knows I found that out myself during my days in the student council and related activities in high school. I try to avoid "governmental" actions these days as a result. That doesn't mean that I can't do things related to the same basic subjects, but I do try to avoid taking on the "power" that comes with some of those responsibilities, because having to always remain on your toes about your own conduct got to me after a while. Maybe the time has come for you to admit the same to yourself, if you think that it applies. No one would ask you to be a "work horse", like you said earlier, but I believe we would all welcome input in developing weak content in any area. And God knows there is enough weak content out there. I'm at least marginally involved in all the geographical WikiProjects out there, and peripherally involved in a lot of the social and cultural ones. Almost literally ever one of them is comparatively undermanned. If you had any interest in any of those topics, and wanted to help develop the content, I;m sure the editors active in that area would be ore than happy to take any contributions you might want to make. Finally, maybe a bit belatedly, I tink I might actually really be shutting up now. Sorry for taking up so much space on your talk page. John Carter (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"Clarification" at ArbCom

I think you should give yourself to think calmly and then probably edit Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Statement_by_Mattisse, which I think you wrote while upset and confused (not unreasonably). While Moni3 has sometimes be critical of your conduct, she has consistently been constructive, all the way back to the early mentoring proposals during your ArbCom. While I disagree with Moni3 about many specific issues, I respect her determination to find ways of making progress. Recently Moni3 was the first to suggested a more structured format, some variation of which should remove the free-for-alls that have been confusing for you and for all those whose are trying to help you. If we can agree a business-like format that gets issues resolved clearly and usually quickly and then such a proposal gets ArbCom's blessing, free-for-alls should be very rare and possibly result in severe warnings for those who cause them. In short, I think Moni3's referral to ArbCom and her short-term lock on the monitoring page will be helpful to you. --Philcha (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Moni3 did make a good suggestion, which my monitors/advisers adapted yesterday and on which we were working. However, Moni3 has also personally attacked me and refused to retract when asked by another admin. I cannot trust her. Things are unstable enough without an admin like that involved, taking sides, and locking down my user space page. That is an abuse of admin tools. —mattisse (Talk) 17:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, regardless of right or wrong, I think you should chill on rushing to your own defense. It should be clear to you that there are many editors out here who value the work you do on wikipedia and many of them are willing to go the extra mile to help you. However, your situation here, again the validity of the 'why' is no longer important, is rather precarious, and, each and every time you rush to your own defense you only end up slipping down the slope a little further. Others are defending you, let them do it. Far better, I think, to focus on the many people who want to help you than to hunt everywhere for signs of editors trying to diss you. I won't pretend to understand where each and every person who comments on you is coming from but I can quite clearly see where all this will end up if you don't learn to keep the stuff that is inside you - inside. (I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but I think it needs to be said by somebody.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

As the monitoring page is locked down and Arbcom considers whether to help structure the page more properly, I am putting concerns here in the hopes that mentors will step in. These comments contain inappropriate content -> speculation on motivations of other editors, and making accusing/deragatory comments about another user without diffs. Mentors, please discuss with Mattissee whether these comments were appropriate. I'd appreciate if this could be done in a public forum - here, or somewhere else with a link provided. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I will go through all of SandyGeorgia's edits and post here diffs registering her dissatisfaction. As far as you second point, where did arbcom give SandyGeogria any feedback that she had enhanced influence over what happens to me after arbcom ended or that she has special input into the monitoring? I though it was clear by the arbitration outcome that she did not. Please provide diffs showing that she does. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of further clarity, these are the particular sentences I found problematic:

• Moni3 has no right to lock down my user page because SandyGeorgia is not getting her way --> implying that a) Moni was acting on Sandy's behalf and b) that SandyGeorgia is upset for not getting her way (both are about motivations of other users, and both show a failure to assume good faith)
• ArbCom gave no rights regarding my mentoring, but rather tended to disregard her suggestions -> no diffs on "tended to disregard her suggestions"; the current phrasing appears to me an attempt to discredit a user, and for this a diff should be necessary.

Thank you. Karanacs (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The post discredits the user only if that user believes he or she has special rights. Otherwise, it is just a statement of fact.

The only editor that continually and insistently posted after the page was cleared was SandyGeorgia (and Moni3).(See page edit history ) Not one other editor was posting after the page was cleared yesterday. So the page was locked down to prevent the removal of SandyGeorgia's posts. It was very discouraging to see the "discussions" resume after my mentors/advisers and I had decided that the page could not continue that way. To have SandyGeorgia repeatedly posting, and Moni3 "explaining" to SandyGeorgia on the page was exactly what we wanted to eliminate. I removed SandyGeorgia's repeated post to the editorial comment page. Look at the edit history of the page to see if anyone other than SandyGeorgia was making posts. —mattisse (Talk) 18:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I will collect SandyGeorgia's suggestions from the arbitration and we can count how many were accepted. Is that fair? It is difficult to proof the absence of something. —mattisse (Talk) 18:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Karancs. I think the 2 cases you cite are different:

• "ArbCom gave , Mattisse, you should remove "but rather tended to disregard her suggestions" - the preceding clause makes the point well enough, and "but rather tended to disregard her suggestions" would require a ton of evidence, some of which could only be obtained by peering inside the heads of Arbs. When oposting on contentious subjects like this, I recommend that you use "preview" before thinking of saving, and remove any phrases that you cannot back up with overwhelming evidence.
• "Moni3 has no right to lock down my user page because SandyGeorgia is not getting her way" was a seriously stupid comment by Mattisse:
  • IMO Moni3, despite disagreeing with Mattisse quite often, has acted constructively all the way back to the earliest mentoring proposals at Mattisse's ArbCom. I think Moni's lock of the monitoring page and referral to ArbCom on how to make this thing work are helpful, as I explained above. Mattisse, I can easily understand that you've been stressed about all the dog-piling at your monitoring page, which at least half of your mentors have struggled with limited success to bring to a halt. But I think you totally misunderstand the likely effects of Moni3's actions.
  • Implies that Moni3 is a tool of SandyGeorgia is ridiculous and insulting to Moni3. I recommend a full an immediate apology to Moni3. Since the ANI has been archived, you would normally not be allowed to edit part of that discussion. However in this case I think it advisable, if the rules allow it. Karanacs, do you know whether it would be permissible for Mattisse to sanitise that part of her remarks? --Philcha (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I neither require nor desire an apology. I expect people mean what they say, as I do. If they think otherwise afterwards, then I hope that goes to how they behave in the future. Mattisse does not designate what my motivations are, despite what she posts. --Moni3 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Same here, but there's a bigger issue. Mattisse is under ArbCom sanction, and she has violated them. Striking those comments before the arbs review them will be to her benefit. To answer Philcha's question, yes, I have seen editors strike comments after archiving, and I can't see why anyone reasonable would object. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Moni3 made up her mind long ago and is not disinterested. Example: —mattisse (Talk) 19:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Mattisse, please follow the advice of your mentors. You are not helping yourself. The diff you linked expresses the exact same sentiments about your behavior that Arbcom approved; Moni just uses more colorful language. Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• <edit conflict> Philcha, please look at the edit history of the page. After the page was cleaned up yesterday and my mentors/advisers were contributing constructive ideas, SandyGeorgia was the only editor to post. She and Moni3's interference. If you look at the history, you can perhaps understand what I was experiencing. ArbCom made it clear that only I was responsible for my plan. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Mattisse, could you please explain why you think it was wrong for me to post to the talk page, providing a sample to work out the kinks before a new structure was implemented? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, Moni3 sometimes gets exasperated and blows her top. Unfortunately you seem to have the knack of making that happens, as at the M. by Internet GA review. However Moni3 has put a lot of work into contructive comments over the last 3-4 months, and you should be grateful that someome who has had disputes with you still continues to be constructive. One of the things you need to learn is the difference between disagreement. and hostility. I won't embarrass the innocent by naming them, but there are some editors with whom I have had vigorous debates, but also enoughs laughs - sometimes in the middle of debates. In fact some people treat debates as a sport, like chess or tennis - I sometimes do so if I think I'm dealing with another players of the same "game", but try to hold back on WP unless I get the right vibes. After the digression, back to the message: disagreement is not hostility. --Philcha (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, would you like to provide diffs or other links? --Philcha (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Diffs or other links to what? I'm querying statements made in this very section ... ???? (Including at 18:00 and at 18:35). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe SandyGeorgia could explain why she is, to my mind, over preoccupied with me and my failings, as exemplified by this discussion on her talk page when I have little if anything to do with her. I rarely post on FAC, I no longer do extensive reviews and copy edits of FACs. I have given up for the time being reviewing GAs. How do I get in SandyGeorgia's way enough for her to go to all this trouble to get me banned? It is ok for Moni3 to blow her stack every now and then, you say Philcha, but when I get hectored by constant negative postings on my page and see my mentors/advisers attacked it is not understandable that I get upset? I don't understand the rationale. Why does Moni3 even care? is it just because Munchausen by Internet never made it to GA? Isn't it time to drop the grudges and leave me alone? My mentors/advisers have been wonderful and I have learned a lot. It seems to me that my failing are few and are brought on by this hectoring on the mentoring page. Thanks. —mattisse (Talk) 20:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This very section is becoming as big as muddle as the monitoring page became - it started as 2 incidents posted by Karanacs, but has spread into structuring the mentoring process, and goodness knows what else. Can I suggest:

• We ask the Arbs if we can make a subpage of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification to develop a structure for Mattise's monitoring page. That way constructive and well-thought suggestions can be discussed in public but under the watchful of the Arbs.
• Until that is done, Mattisse create a "pending" page, from which the mentors can process cases in chronological order of creation once the structure is in place. The monitoring page will need a link to this, which will need to be edited in by an admin as the monitoring page is currently locked.
• Mattisse, that approach would create some short-term risks for you, as there would not be immediate responses to any genuine incidents. You would have to be very disciplined and patient - if you are considering a post that comments on the conduct or motives of other editors, contact one or more of your mentors and delay the post until you get feedback from the mentors you contact - starting now, and with this Talk page. --Philcha (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, part of dispute resolution is a willingness to engage in dialogue with other editors. You've never done that, and are changing the subject here. I asked why you think it was wrong of me to post a sample to talk; will you please answer? And where have I ever tried to get you banned? I can't think of any two editors who have worked as hard as Moni and I have at avoiding what is happening today; you ending up back at ArbCom because you didn't consult your mentors or take their advice. Please answer the question: why do you think it was wrong for me to post a trivial sample on your monitoring talk page, to help get a better structure in place ? (Philcha, for gosh sakes, Mattisse doesn't deal well with page moves; leave this where it started. We've got too damn many pages already, with discussion about Mattisse spreading all over wiki!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Philcha, I'm still unclear why you're requesting a diff? Perhaps because you didn't see the monitoring talk page before it got chopped? Here it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I apologise if I missed something - as I said, this Talk thread is becoming thoroughly muddled, and that's why I suggesting discussing a structure of mentoring at a subpage of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I just was unclear what you were asking, and wanted to be sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

break

• <edit conflict> To SandyGeorgia. Because my mentors/advisers and I had just undergone a rough period of time with multiple attacks on them, arguments between editors on the monitoring page etc. that I have described elsewhere. And we had decided to have a strict format so that the monitoring page was not a free for all. After the page had been cleared for the last time and my mentors/advisers and I were discussing the format, you posted a longish post that Moni3 felt she had to answer, and you to answer that etc. and the who dismal situation of editors discussing me in the third person again on a page that was meant for communication between me and my advisers/mentors. Why did you insist that you had to post right then? Why could you not allow me and my advisers/mentors a little breather to collect ourselves. Some editor called User:Unitanode, whom I have never heard of and never had any interactions with, posted six times in one day (August 13) on my talk page, as well as a multitude of times on the monitoring page, as well as posting individually to my mentors/advisers, to your talk page, to NewYorkBrad etc. Do you not think it is time to step back for a while? Why are all these people involved that I have had no connection with? Why the full court press? The new format for the monitoring page was meant to stop all this, and restrict posts by other editors to a brief comment, plus diffs, plus a statement of expectations and notes by mentors/editors. It was very discouraging to see the whole circus begin instantly again when we actually had a format in hand. Why not give us a chance? Thanks. —mattisse (Talk) 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am not sure what you are referring to, Mattisse. I posted a trivial sample so your mentors could see if the proposed structure would work, on talk. What exactly are you talking about? I was trying to help you and your mentors, by providing a sample on talk. If I had bad intentions towards you, I could have just waited for the structure to be put in place, and load it up with multiple examples; have I done that ? I just provided a diff for Philcha of the page before you started moving things; where are these posts you are referring to? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Also, FYI, you haven't yet struck the comments about me at AN/I as recommended by Philcha above. For me, there's no difference, but it will help your case before the arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I believe that I struck through the part Phicha suggested as soon as he suggested it. I will check and do it again, if necessary. —mattisse (Talk) 21:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• <edit conflict x 2> I have lost my edits and I am tired. If you look through the edit history of the monitoring page, you will see exactly what happened on that page. And that is not counting the constant posts and edit conflicts on my talk page. We had worked out a format, we were finalizing it. We had cleared the page of extraneous posts. Sandy Georgia posted, Moni3 felt she had to post in response and the whole vicious cycle was returning. It had to be nipped in the bud. Next others would be giving their opinions who were not mentors/advisers etc. etc. Give us a chance to catch our breath. If you have a complaint, you will be asked to post a (very brief e.g. one sentence) description with a diff, reference the norm violated in the Arbcom, the damage you felt it did to Misplaced Pages, what you expect the mentors/advisers to do. Then the complaint can be processed in an orderly fashion. More suggestions at this point is not helpful. Let us try out our format. Thanks. —mattisse (Talk) 21:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a mistaken impression that the monitoring page was a free-for-all where anyone can post suggestions/arguments/complaints how ever they feel and whatever format they choose. We wanted that stopped as that had become impossibly overloaded and negative. Now it is only the mentors/advisers that will post on the monitoring page for the time being. ArbCom made it clear that I was responsible for these mentoring pages and that I was in charge. SandyGeorgia is insisting on doing it her way right now. I am saying no, we need to collect our thoughts and ideas about what has happened already. There is no reason to put people under this much stress and expect them to operate optimally. Thanks, —mattisse (Talk) 21:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Mattisse, but you can no longer avoid necessary dispute resolution by claiming that you're too tired to back up your statements after dissing another editor. This is the page just before you started moving posts. WHERE are these posts you mention? That sample was an explicit example of exactly what you and your mentors were working on, specifically placed only on talk to help out in the effort. When you make derogatory statements about other editors, you need to be sure you are correct, and you need to be able to back them with diffs. Your misunderstanding of me and my motives has caused enough agida for all of Wiki that it is time for you to provide diffs, not say you're too tired. The edit conflicts, which caused this whole brouhaha, and caused you to be so tired, only happened because you didn't explain what you were doing, didn't answer queries, and didn't wait for your mentors. It's time that you started treating other editors the way you want to be treated. I will be out for most of the evening, and all day tomorrow. I will be checking to see if you've struck your post at AN/I, because it is time that you started listening to your mentors and treating other editors fairly. If you aren't able to find it, perhaps a mentor will help, as I'll be out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to avoid anything. Please assume good faith and do not automatically disparage me. I am sick of repeating myself. But I will do it again. My advisors/mentors were in the process of coming up with a strict format to prevent free-form suggestion, comments, criticisms, discussion between other editors who were not advisers/mentors from occurring on that page, as it was disruptive. We were undergoing that process when Moni3 decided to lock down the page. Therefore, until it is unlocked not much can be done. Once we are able, my advisers/mentors and I will continue our work. It is not true that anyone has a right to post on my userspace page. I have determined that for now, only my advisers/mentors can post there so we can complete our work without disruption. It is not productive to insist on posting on that page. Thanks, —mattisse (Talk) 21:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And you, and only you caused this whole brouhaha, resulting in you being before ArbCom again, because you acted unilaterally, apparently based on a misunderstanding, and without consulting your mentors, again. When you cause problems, you have to accept the tiring consequences of dealing with the fallout. A huge percentage of Wiki's best editors are involved now in trying to help you. Please start helping yourself. If you can't back disparaging comments you make about other editors, stop making them. I agree with the sentiment below that everyone would be well advised to take a breather, but unfortunately on Wiki, once you start problems, they tend to spiral. That's the nature of Wiki, so it's best not to start them to begin with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It would helpful if others would comment on my suggestion to use a subpage of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification to develop a structure for Mattise's monitoring page. --Philcha (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Breathing space

Mattisse, there is so much happening right now. Too much. The drama is escalating, and people are hurting. I have just spend a considerable amount of time reading through various postings. I don't want to spend my Wiki time reading through all this non-productive stuff. While all this is happening, we are not having fun, and we are not building the encyclopedia. And, worse, all this bickering is making things worse.

I have told you I will continue to assist you with your plan, but you need to help me do that. You need to help all of us do that. Stop commenting right now on any individual on Misplaced Pages. Do not make any comments here, on the ArbCom page, on your Monitoring page, on anyone's talkpage, or any other page on Misplaced Pages about any other Misplaced Pages editor. Do this for 48 hours. This will allow matters to calm down a bit, and for your mentors/advisors to catch up on what's happening.

I am looking at these coping techniques in your plan:

• "Disengage from interactions in which I feel stress or negative emotions before my behavior become problematic."
• "Consciously be aware that I do not have to address points registered against me, but can choose to disengage instead."
• "Refrain from tendency to answer every point made in remarks to me."
• "Follow the advice of trusted advisers/mentors, rather than overlooking it as I have at times in the past."

Follow the advice. SilkTork * 21:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree totally. --Philcha (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Me three. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK. I have just now read this part of my page. I will do no more commenting anywhere. I am so grateful that you guys are willing to keep working with me. I feel that we have a format pretty well nailed down to try out as a complaint form. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Threaded discussion in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification is not for threaded discussion. If you simply must respond to someone, you have to respond to them in your own section - not in their section. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, please put your comments in your own section: I've moved your latest from my section to yours, but I'm in a hurry, so you'll have to doublecheck that I did it correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So who's going to move Giano's interpolation into Mattisse's statement? --Philcha (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of mentoring page

Mattisse, I don't think anyone else agrees with your idea that the mentoring page is only for yourself and your mentors. While I want cut right down on the dog-piling, hostilities and downright irrelevances, there has to be a place for concerns to be raised. OK, in theory they could be raised at some sort of "pending" page, but then they'd have to be summarised at the mentoring page - and the person best placed to do that is the original poster. That's why some of us support a structure approach including a form, with sections for the original poster, the mentors and yourself - and IMO no other parties, because that's been where the muddles have arisen. I suggest other parties comment at a subpage which the mentors can review before making recommendations. --Philcha (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There has been two issues to mentor, which the advisors/mentors handled extremely well. And the joke sockpuppet incident, for which I was blocked for two weeks, longer that the abusive sockpuppeters at arbcom, as arbcom did not block anyone for long term abusive sockpuppetting. The only think that has not worked is the monitoring page. That is because it is a free-for-all. The mentoring process is working, in my opinion, but the monitoring page is not. There is no requirement that there even be a monitoring page. Dissatisfied editors with grievances can contact individual mentors/advisers. The mentoring page was being used almost entirely for abuse, attacks, and bickering. The monitoring page caused major stress on me, even though many of the posts were not about me but rather thoughts by uninvolved editors, or attacks on my mentors/advisers. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The monitoring page caused major stress on me, too :-( But IMO the problem was not the presence of the mentoring page but the presence of unhelpful posts there. I think a more structured approach, which allows only comments from the original poster, would be a big help.

We need a central place for this to happen. For example if someone with a concern has to contact individual mentors and the chosen mentor is unavailable, the delay in response could be dangerous for you. --Philcha (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly; notice how things spiraled today while no mentors were available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how. If the page had not been locked down by an involved admin, there would not have been a problem. Even with the page locked down, there did not need to be a problem. I went to AN/I because I really believed that a user, in the normal course of events, could be forbidden from editing his own userpage. If I was wrong about that, I could have be told that I was wrong. There was no need to escalate this into a major situation. That is not a major incident and did not need to be addressed immediately. When I did something obviously wrong I was blocked. Other than the recent uproar caused by the multiple postings across forums by some editors, I have not engaged in a pattern of casting aspersions and personal attacks. I get along fine with 99.9999 percent of the editors on Misplaced Pages. If this is the nature of a major emergency on Misplaced Pages, then I have to say, "Yeah, it is just a website." Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Moni did you a huge favor by locking down the page, as that prevented you from digging yourself in further given that no mentors were available? That's what I saw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Moni3's locked down version of the monitoring page omits all the progress we had made. See this version I am not sure how the pared down version was chosen for lock down over the one with the mentors/advisers suggestions for improvements. Thanks, —mattisse (Talk) 22:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, well you were the only one removing content from the page, so if something was "stripped down", how can Moni help it? Please, when making statements like this, go back through the page and get them accurate. Everything that you removed is now on the "Editorial" page that you created. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree with SandyG. One of the reasons I gave up on your mentorship was that I wasn't able to issue the short blocks you'd agreed to during the Arbcom case. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, you said you were too tired to locate diffs, yet you continue editing, and still haven't struck this deragotory comment from AN/I: "Moni3 has no right to lock down my user page because SandyGeorgia is not getting her way". It doesn't appear that you are too tired to locate it, as you've already been to AN/I where you *altered* a comment rather than striking it. Moni did you a favor by preventing you from making your situation worse while your mentors were absent, and you can read NYB's comments on the arb, as well as Durova's. You've done this to yourself, but you still have a chance to salvage what you've done; rather than spending time arguing the situation here on your talk, don't you think your time would be better spent, and you could make a better case to the arbs by striking your derogatory comments at AN/I, and going through this (your) talk page to do the same? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I apologize for inferring that Moni3 removed material. When you introduced negative comments, the constructive atmosphere of the page once again became polluted. I sought to remove you comments to an alternative page, because frankly they made further constructive work very difficult. That was the problem before and the problem we agreed shouild be eliminated or controlled by a rigid structure. Because I became caught in a series of unfathomable (at the time) edit conflicts, I was caught in the middle when the page was locked down to prevent me from controlling the material on my monitoring work page. To me, it was either remove the comments and continue the constructive work, or allow them to stay and see the page devolve into bickering and ugliness again. I apologize if I implied that you did anything other than add the unhelpful comments and alter the constructive mood of the page and contribute to the confusing edit conflicts. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate that you apologized to Moni for the notion that she had removed material or was responsible for the state in which you left the page, but I still notice that you have not stricken or apologized for the comment on AN/I, as advised by Philcha above. Just noting that for the record, as it is these kinds of ongoing failures to assume good faith that lead to problems. By striking that commentary, you can demonstrate that you understand why such comments are inappropriate, a failure to AGF, and led to the original ArbCom.

• Understanding page histories and diffs is an area where your mentors might help you, and you appear to believe the things you state even when diffs show otherwise. You link a diff above as if it shows that I "introduced negative comments" on the page, leading you to remove comments. In fact, that is not the case at all. You began moving material with no explanation, and the comments and questions from Moni and me came after you initiated that process.

Here is how the diffs work; I do hope your mentors will work with you on this diff and edit history problem, as it seems to be recurring issue in your developing and holding unfounded beliefs.

1. This was the last edit before you began removing material.
2. Here, you began moving material.
3. Here I asked if you no longer wanted other editors to edit that page.
4. And again.
5. Now, since you have provided no diff that substantiates that you "sought to remove comments" after I "introduced negative comments", I am left guessing at what you consider negative comments. Are you referring to this, which was after you starting moving commentary, losing some in the process, and making a jumble of the new page by combining posts in to sections where they were not originally placed?
6. It is also completely inaccurate for you to continue saying that "I was caught in the middle when the page was locked down to prevent me from controlling the material on my monitoring work page." You had already removed all the material yourself; you failed to move it correctly to the other page, or to the correct sections. But you did control the material on your page; you removed it all. No one else had anything to do with that. What do you mean when you say you were "prevented" from controlling the material? What else were you intending to do? That is why I say Moni did you a favor, as you weren't apparently aware of what you were creating, and were digging yourself in, going against the consensus of your mentors that other editors could post to the Monitoring page, and your example of bringing other editors' posts to that page from the day before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, you seem to hold many entrenched inaccurate views about other editors and their motives; until and unless you learn to read diffs and page histories and back your statements with diffs, it would be wise to refrain from making derogatory statements about your beliefs about other editors. You could have avoided this entire incident by 1) waiting for and talking with your mentors before moving commentary, and 2) immediately striking your derogatory statements from AN/I, which you have yet to do. Enough of Wiki's finest editors are spending inordinate amounts of time sorting these unnecessary messes, and it's time for you to start helping yourself, so they can do productive things like write articles, fight vandals, and review articles. The monitoring page was doing fine until you unilaterally started moving material, leading to a large number of editors now spending an entire day sorting the fallout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

These are your opinions SandyGeorgia. You seem to be making assumptions about what I believe and what I think I know. This is your version of events, and you are entitled to your point of view. Please allow me the same courtesy and assume good faith. None of us have a monopoly on the "truth". Really, the events of that day are a small matter. I submit that you, Moni3 and I all handled the situation poorly. Let us assume good faith and believe that at the time we each though we were doing the right thing, and that none of us were. Misplaced Pages was not being destroyed if one or the other of us did not get our way on that page on that day. It was a userspace page, not an article.

Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 14:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, those are not my opinions; they are the hard evidence, proof, data, the diffs, the page history of what did happen. Not subject to opinion. That is how arbs will measure you-- not based on opinions. Until you learn to read diffs and edit histories, you may continue to form erroneous recollections of what actually happened, and faulty assumptions about other editors and their motives. If you don't want to learn to read diffs, that's fine, but please take greater care in disparaging other editors as a result of your misunderstandings. AGF wears out when you continue the same pattern of behavior that Arbcom has already called to your attention. You decided (apparently, based on your unstruck post to AN/I), that Moni was acting on my behalf because I wasn't "getting my way" (even though I queried twice what was happening, and you didn't respond); your faulty recollection of what actually happened contributes to your inaccurate opinions about other editors. If you state those faulty recollections in public, you'd best be able to back your statements with a diff, or refrain from commenting on other editors' motives, as was pointed out in the final Arb decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to prove something here that does not need proving. We all three screwed up on that page on that day, I believe. Setting forth the article history does not address the statement: "Mattisse, you seem to hold many entrenched inaccurate views about other editors and their motives". Sequences of events does not firmly determine motivations when the situation is chaotic, and I, for one, had not a clue what was going on at the time. So I was losing edits and not getting a clear picture of the page. I made mistakes. However, this was a userspace page, not an article, so I maintain that nothing critical was happening here that emergency measures were needed. That is my view. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 14:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, your statement at AN/I, which remains unstruck, does address the statement about your views on other editors' motives. Um, and where did I "screw up on that page", btw? I queried you twice about what was happening, and Moni asked you to stop removing content before protecting the page. Those aren't opinions; they are diff-backed facts. What was critical that was happening is that the Arb decision clearly states that your plan is developed in consensus with your mentors, regardless of whether it resides in user space. I appreciate you acknowledging and recognizing and explaining the mistakes you made, but I will be more inclined to believe you really understand that if you strike your deragotory comments from AN/I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I struck the part from AN/I that Philcha suggested I strike. yesterday. Since the discussion is closed, my understand is that more changes cannot be made. Please assume good faith, and do not assume that my motivations are devious or evil or intentionally harmful. I believe that we all erred in that the monitoring the page could have been left alone for a while. No one had to get their way at that moment. I don't believe that it is important to assign "blame" in a chaotic situation, a situation in the big scheme of things was unimportant. Nothing had to be said on the page at that moment. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What you state above is inaccurate. You struck one of them, not the other, and you did already alter one of your posts even though the section was archived. And please take greater care not to malign other editors in your edit summaries (such as the last one). You have avoided answering what I did wrong in yesterday's incident; if you want to resolve disputes, you need to answer questions. You did assign blame: to me. Now it's up to you to clarify. I know that dealing with an uncomfortable situation that you created is not easy, but since you have refused to strike your deragotory statement about me at AN/I, this will continue until the dispute is resolved. I will be out all day; perhaps when I return I'll find the statement at AN/I has been struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, you should remove "but rather tended to disregard her suggestions" - the preceding clause makes the point well enough, and "but rather tended to disregard her suggestions" would require a ton of evidence, some of which could only be obtained by peering inside the heads of Arbs. Please provide a diff that I did not strike out the portion that my mentor/adviser Philcha suggested I do. There is no statement that I refused to strike. I did what Philcha said. Please assume good faith. I experience your words as harsh and demanding in tone, and I suggest attempts to assign blame are not helpful, as there is enough blame to go around. I would prefer a more constructive approach. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I recommended that you strike "Moni3 has no right to lock down my user page because SandyGeorgia is not getting her way" (see the other diff), but was unsure whether it was "legal" to edit comments in an incident still on the main ANI page but flagged as "an archived discussion". I've seen no admin comment on this. Since SandyGeorgia and agree on this, I suggest you make the change and in the edit summary write in e.g. "change recommented by SandyGeorgia and Philcha at Mattisse's Talk". --Philcha (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I did as you suggested, Philcha. —mattisse (Talk) 16:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your post

Clarifications requests are not usually the place for back and forth between editors. In response to my comments you pose several questions. The syntax makes it unclear whether the queries are directed to the arbitrators, or are rhetorical, or are for me. Several months ago you asked that I cease posting to your user talk. If today's questions are not directed at me, then feel free to blank this post and we can agree to disagree. If you intended to initiate a dialog then let's continue it here. I've been known to change my mind and revise opinions. Durova 00:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not know what to think of you or how to respond. I am not sure what you expect of me here. I am sorry that editors see my advisers/mentors as failures when they have been unfailingly informative to me. I certainly do not think they stint on criticism or give me a free ride. I would like to think that mentoring/advising can work on Misplaced Pages, and that good editors like me, excellent editors like me who engage almost entirely in content work without criticism, can be driven from Misplaced Pages by old grudges, still carried. Other than the last 24 hours or so, when I have been under unstinting (and unnecessary) pressure, I think you will find very few "mistakes" that I have made, other than the joke sockpuppet thing. I am not a perfect human being, but I have given liberally and constructively to Misplaced Pages. I think there is no question that I am a net positive. And the fact that some hold grudges over time should not determine whether I am allowed to continue to contribute to the project or not. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Then we share some common ground: mentorship as an undertaking can be worthwhile; it does have successes. Could it be possible that some of your critics are sincere (even if mistaken) and do not bear you a personal grudge? Durova 00:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Anything is possible. It is hard to understand when I have had no interaction with them at all outside the monitoring page today, do not edit the same places etc. What could the explanation be, do you think, besides old grudges? All I have been doing for a while is dyks and copy editing for a few trusted editors. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's possible I may have been mistaken. Your content contributions are very laudable. The thing is, some people have wikiphilosophies that occasionally get mistaken for personal grudges. It's best to think of WP:AGF as a checklist where bad faith is the final item after other reasonable possibilities are exhausted and opportunity for clarification has been provided. That's much easier to say than to abide by, so feel free to nudge me when appropriate if I err. There were basically three things in the last several months that caught my attention. One was the socking--or joke account if you'd rather call it that--which prompted two reactions. My inner teenager quietly found it hilarious, but the 41-year-old I actually am cringed for your sake. Really, tu quoque isn't a good answer to anything. Better to take the high road. Now in terms of joke accounts you may or may not realize this, but my own alternate account (who pretends to be a troll but really strives to be very uncontroversial) did have an unexpected run-in with you while he tried as hard as he could to be a good editor. My little sockpuppet User:Hamlet,_Prince_of_Trollmark was trying for a triple crown. His interests are very specialized: trolls and trolling (broadly defined), hosiery, and parodies of Hamlet. He's gotten three featured pictures on the themes "trolling" (from a Currier and Ives print of fishing), "sock" (from a hosiery factory) and "puppet" (from a burlesque poster). Found a company called Gold Toe Brands that didn't have an article yet and wrote something for it, yet it had trouble passing DYK review. Now Hamlet has a standing offer to retire if he actually offends anyone. So speak now if you object. He was thinking of raising either a Gilligan's Island episode or the Pets.com article to GA before he ran into experienced and prolific you at DYK nominees. If you don't mind his existence he'd be delighted because an important Tom Stoppard play called Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead could really use improvement. Then--getting back to you--the events of the last day. I really want to see you doing all that good work that you do without the conflicts. Sometimes, in my book, that means saying 'no'. But not everyone who says 'no' is an enemy. In fact, one of the most effective ways to be someone's enemy is to say 'yes' every time a person wants to hear it. You know how that goes? Durova 01:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. Is it that I did something wrong at dyk? I am even more careful now about verifying hooks. I avoid most and only verify those that are unquestionable. I no longer add comments and suggest very few alternative hooks. I am quite willing to give up verifying hooks entirely, as it is not fun but rather anxiety provoking. Is that what you are suggesting? I only do it out of a sense of obligation because I have so many dyks myself, so I am quite willing to give up any further involvement, other than entering hooks for consideration. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

-

(ec'd, saw the words 'rather anxiety provoking' added (but not much else) and willing to lay off upon request) Well, the general sense is that one incident is a one-off, two raises an antenna, and three is a pattern. The subtext seemed to be that the article might be getting held to a higher standard than others because the DYK might have been construed as promotional. Actually that hook was nearly the only interesting thing about the topic. I was on the fence about whether to outright say to you that it was my other account, but it's stated so prominently on the userpage that specific comment didn't seem necessary. Now consider for a moment if it had really been a new editor. Yes, you made me gunshy about using that account (which I had created because I was near burnout) and although he lingered a little bit he hasn't actually done very much in months. Wanted to keep him fun and productive. What if it had been an editor who was really new? Do you kind of see the concern? Taken together with your previous block of 2 September 2006, and your very pointy joke account while your conduct was under scrutiny, and the edit war within the last day--can you see how someone who mostly observes from a distance may think better a short ban than a long one? I may be wrong in that. But I don't want to see a long departure and I worry that may otherwise happen down the road. Durova 02:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Per this post, do you interpret this thread as an attack? I don't mean to personally attack you. Durova 02:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Durova,
• I cannot make sense out of these posts. Could you explain what is being meant here? Could you give diffs so that I would know what on earth this refers to? Are you saying that you have a joke account and I did something bad to that joke account in dyk? I can't follow what you are saying. Can you clearly explain exactly what I did in that situation that was wrong? I assure you that if I ever knew a dyk was by a sockpuppet, I would skip it and let someone else deal with it. At the most, I would ask Art LaPella was to do. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 13:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but this discussion seems to have got lost its way. Durova, on the basis of your comments here I have no doubt about your good faith here. But your comments after the first have become longer and unfocussed. Perhaps you're trying to be diplomatic, but the result appears to be confusion. It might help if you return to your original point, about Mattisse's

Please watchlist this page!

This is the new page for editors who are not my mentors/advisers to make editorial comments on: User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments. Please watch list this page. However, I would prefer that dissatisfied editors contact a mentor/adviser individual, to prevent a battleground or attack mentality from developing on that page. Please let me know if you object to this. Thanks! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to respond to alerts about your behaviour, and to discuss with the other advisors the best course of action. And I will communicate with those who are impacted by your behaviour, and who wish to discuss the matter with me. And I will also respond to reasonable requests from people who might have an interest (members of ArbCom spring to mind) or who have a known history with you. But I'm not sure what benefit will be gained by my watching (and reading!) a side-discussion. Could you explain why I might need to watch that page? SilkTork * 17:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That should be reworked with my mentors/advisers. At the time, I was trying to move all the lengthy posts, discussion between editors who were not my mentors/advisers off the monitoring page so that I and my mentors/advisers could reasonably work on a complaint format free from attacks and the disruptive free-for-all that was occurring on the monitoring page. I felt the monitoring page had become useless. However, apparently I went about this the wrong way. So, I am looking for input on how to handle this. Meanwhile, at least the arbitration clarification request is siphoning off all the comments that would have gone on that page, so that is a blessing, and discussion is progressing as to a complaint form. What do you think I should do? Regard, —mattisse (Talk) 17:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You should immediately stop claiming that you are the one who is being attacked, when in reality it is you who persist in impugning the motives of others. You just did it again above. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you should pause activity on any of the subpages until the result of the ArbCom clarification is known. SilkTork * 11:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have. Thanks! —mattisse (Talk) 12:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Author's Farce ‎

Mattisse, I nominated The Author's Farce at FAC. I know you don't work on FACs, but I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking some time, looking over it, and perhaps making some comments on the talk page. You seem to be able to catch things other people miss. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Spotted Seal

On October 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spotted Seal, 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) 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.

A start on the ArbCom report

Here. SilkTork * 10:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

GAN in progress

Hello, Mattisse. I'm reminding you that you still have a GA review in progress at Talk:Choor Singh/GA1. Jacklee has been reminded of this fact as well.--Edge3 (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reminded him again on his user page. If only he would address the Talk:Choor Singh/GA1. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This has been completed. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 14:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain

This user helped promote Crown Fountain to good article status.

DYK for Viedma Glacier

On October 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Viedma Glacier, 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) 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.

Correction

Thank you for clarifying the monitoring page move confusion. I was incorrect in stating that you were solely responsible for moving posts to and from the monitoring page. I have been so confused by the way everything's been moved that I missed the fact that others were helping with post archival. I should have rephrased to "Mattisse and her mentors have...". (I don't want to make corrections at Geometry Guy's page now because he's indicated that the conversation should be moved, but consider this my correction.) Karanacs (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)