Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:58, 28 August 2009

Blocked directly for two weeks

I have blocked your account from editing for a period of two weeks for abusive sockpuppetry. CheckUser evidence shows that CallMeNow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Big Toxic Personality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and VividMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are all being operated by the owner of this account.

I have emailed the ArbCom mailing list with the technical data relating to this case.

If you wish to contest this block, you may do so by placing {{unblock|reason}} below this notice. J.delanoy_adds 03:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with J.delanoy's CU findings. In addition, the SPAs all seem to be targeting Bishonen, who I know Mattisse has some issues with, based on previous encounters at FAR, AN/I, and other drama huts. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with J.delanoy's & Nishkid64's CU findings. --Versageek 03:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I have no "issues" with Bishon. However, I get the strong hint and will leave Misplaced Pages. You make your choices about who to favor and who to kick away. I am gone. I see you favor certain editors at the expense of trashing others. I am willing to leave Misplaced Pages. It is an ugly place ruled by cabals. —mattisse (Talk) 03:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I am saddened that you are unwilling to let go of personal issues and carry on with your productive article work. However, I implore you to return to Misplaced Pages after this block and focus solely on what you do well: improve articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I have no issues as you assume. If my contributions are not good enough, I am willing to leave. It is time to stop trying to contribute to Misplaced Pages when this is my reward. —mattisse (Talk) 03:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I sign off on the above block, not that it matters. Prodego 03:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Bishon says that I am not an enemy. So the petty accusations are enough to rid Misplaced Pages of me. That tells me louder than anything that I was a fool to work for this project. Thank you for letting me know so loud and clear. —mattisse (Talk) 11:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What were the edits of CallMeNow that were worth a two week block? They are deleted so I cannot tell. What were the "abusive" edits by the other account. I do not see any in the conbributions of that account. Others are allowed to have undisclosed sockpuppets. So, even if these were mine, what is the harm? It took Arbcom a month to desyp Geogre for a two year sockpuppet spree of abusive sockpuppeting and he was never blocked that I recall. Favouritism at it's worse on Misplaced Pages. There is a cabal for real, protecting the elite. —mattisse (Talk) 11:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A few comments:

• It was bloody stupid impolitic of Mattisse to get involved in something like this - note my use of "impolitic".
• However the block was grossly disproportionate, considering the way we mollycoddle defacers of articles.
• There is obviously gross inequality before the law of WP. Geogre used undisclosed socks for 2 years to stack discussions, but was only de-sysopped. Bishonen does not seem to exploit socks in such a systematic way, and half the time it likes look she's satirising socks - but it's bad a precedent and should be discouraged (disclosure: after recent discussions about Geogre and Bishonen, I'd advocation forbidding the use of socks unless a dispensation is gained in advance). Mattisse uses 3 socks for a handful of days and gets a 2 week block.

I think those who support the block should explain why there was no prior warning and why the block was so severe. --Philcha (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• What Mattisse appears to have done was "impolitic" at best, and I'd go so far as to say bloody stupid. But I don't see anything in the contributions of CallMeNow to warrant such a severe punishment, without warning. As Philcha says above, it really does confirm what many already know; favoured sons like Geogre—and many others—routinely get away with behaviours that would get a less popular editor blocked. Corrupt doesn't even get close to describing the chaotic governance of this place. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I too would be interested in knowing why there were no prior warning and why the block was for as long as it is. John Carter (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• From what I can see, while the sockpuppetry is juvenile in character, it is barely abusive. A couple of childish comments from one account, a second account not used abusively, and a third unused account hardly call for a drastic block unless there is a prior pattern/history of abusive sockpuppetry. I suggest rescinding the block and warning the user instead. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Mattisse has been here for 3 years. We're supposed to just give her a slap on the wrist for sockpuppetry now? I don't think the user should be unblocked, but perhaps the block could be reduced to 31 hours or something along those lines. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Furthermore, this looks to me like a clear case of WP:GHBH, which by definition is a violation of our sockpuppetry policy. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see any evidence of WP:GHBH, and neither do I believe that sockpuppets—whether disclosed or not—is necessarily a blocking offence. Many do so without being blocked, and have done so over extended periods of time. Even some ArbCom members. The length of this block seems disproportionate to the crime. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• "All users are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of disruption or artificially stirring up controversy. It is never acceptable to keep one account "clean", while using another account to engage in disruptive behavior." In my opinion, this and this are disruptive. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• The sockpuppetry and subsequent lame denials of such completely surprised me not in its stupidity and pettiness, but its direction at Bishonen of whom I have very little knowledge and negligible interaction. I have little opinion on the protocol for blocking sockpuppets, but I have quite strong opinions that this is but another example of a pattern of disruption of the sort the ArbCom case was opened on Mattisse in the first place. Mattisse has scores to settle, and it does not seem to matter what article improvement processes or Misplaced Pages policies are in place, because by God, she is out to settle them all. If Mattisse's mentors-turned-defenders impress the blocking admins enough to reduce or void the block, I'm fairly going to insist the ArbCom case be re-opened, even if I must do it myself. Mattisse's mentors need to start addressing this problematic behavior at once and not in private. She is her own worst enemy, self-defeating and projecting blame in all directions. Misplaced Pages is not for everyone. If Mattisse cannot let other editors alone, let her retirement stand, work with her earnestly to change her behavior, or block her for the 60-day period suggested by NewYorkBrad. --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I am in no way defending what Mattisse has done. As I said, I think it was bloody stupid, and I was rather shocked at its pointless childishness. My only concern is that all editors are treated equally in such cases. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps those posting against this block have forgotten (or never read or never understood) that checkuser evidence shows this to be a long-standing trend, not a new editing behavior for Mattisse ? To use socks while under ArbCom sanction, when she has been CU verified as socking before, and against an editor with whom she has been in prior conflict surely warrants the two weeks. More importantly, IMO ArbCom missed the boat in its first ruling by not recognizing that a short break (as suggested by NYB, which he did *not* call a block) is something that could be very good for Mattisse. Mattisse, I urge you to take the time off, re-think your priorities, and enjoy the break. I've always found that it takes more than a few days away from Wiki to be able to come back refreshed and renewed, and I hope you'll take that chance. It could change your perspective. Philcha, once again, you are doing Mattisse no favors by defending this behavior; she looks to you for guidance, and you continually turn a blind eye to the ongoing behaviors that lead to Mattisse's problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

To Nishkid64 Please provide proof of your charges

You say you "agree with J.delanoy's CU findings. In addition, the SPAs all seem to be targeting Bishonen, who I know Mattisse has some issues with, based on previous encounters at FAR, AN/I, and other drama huts." Please show me where I have had any dealings with Bishonen at all. Even Bshon says I have not http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Bishonen&curid=14915080&diff=310516630&oldid=310504781

Please provide proof of your charges. —mattisse (Talk) 12:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

From Bishonen's page (copied)

Little friends should always be protected. ;) The silent one 03:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed.— Dædαlus 07:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

O'Hai, little Brass! To think I never guessed that one. But then I merely thought in terms of somebody I was in conflict with, and I have no conflict with that user. Check out the link, Giacomo—I guess you're the one with the conflict. Thanks, Daedalus. Bishonen | talk 09:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC).

DYK for AltaRock Energy

On August 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article AltaRock Energy, 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.

≈ Chamal  ¤ 05:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to know why others can have playful sockpuppets and I cannot - I was just doing what Bishonen does all the time - use sockpuppets in a "playful" manner. - I was making a joke about Bishonen's socks & get blocked for doing it

I though I was just doing what Geogre and Bishonem do all the time - use sockpuppets in a "playful" manner. I was making a joke about Bishonen's sock with a tiny little sock. But I am not in the "in" crowd at Misplaced Pages. —mattisse (Talk) 14:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The best that can be said about your sockpuppets is that you displayed rather poor judgement in setting them up in the present climate. What on Earth were you thinking of? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I too tend to agree that some of the names, which while not as obvious as "Bishzilla", were ones which many people would have fairly quickly recognized, and would have been fairly easily obvious to most people, particularly those directly involved. I'm not sure that the specific actions were appropriate, like adding the links on the top of someone's talk page to what are said to be alternate accounts, but at the same time I have very real trouble seeing how they were really worthy of any sort of block. This belief is, yes, at least in part based on the fact that Geogre, who admitted to using a multiple account for some time, wasn't blocked for it. Blocking or closing the alternate accounts to me seems reasonable, but I don't think that a two week block on the primary is necessarily called for in this instance, based on the information visible to me. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I thought it was a joke. I don't know what the rules are. User:Bishonen can have User:Little Toxic Personality so I had User:Big Toxic Personality. User:Bishonen has User:Toxic Avenger so I had User:CallMeNow to make a point about socks. I find the using of socks offensive, I wanted to make that point. But I am not allowed to do what others regularly do. There are specially harsh rules for me that do not apply to others. That is what I am thinking of. —mattisse (Talk) 15:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That really is the issue, you made your point in a disruptive fashion. What sort of logic makes it okay to use a sock puppet to discourage sock puppetry? Think about it, any point you may have had, regardless of validity, is discredited by the hypocrisy of your methods. Chillum 15:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, you posted hostile comments at User talk:CallMeNow after User:CallMeNow was blocked from editing User talk:CallMeNow. You may not have realised User:CallMeNow was blocked from User talk:CallMeNow, but your actions could be interpreted as cowardly. If you want anyone to pay attention to your opinions and for the sake of your own reputation, I suggest you retract those remarks. --Philcha (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I will gladly discuss this matter with you on my talk page Philcha. Chillum 16:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking about it. Ohers do the same thing, make disruptive points with their sockpuppets, I thought that was the "playful" way to do it. That is the way it is regarded when others do it. I made a few quite harmless edits to make a point, as I have watched all the sockpuppeting go on and condoned. I have made my dislike of sockpuppets known and really do not understand why they are allowed for the elite editors. How is anyone able to understand the rules around here? How was I to know I would be treated differently? Was what I did worse that Geogre. Yet he was treated better. Never blocked at all. Because Geogre was even allowed to keep his alternate account. It was unblocked so he could, even though he had used it abusively. That is why I am confused. Was I more disruptive than Geogre or the many others who do it while admins look the other way? Why not look the other way for me too? I don't get it. I really do not. I made a few harmless edits that I will now accept as poor judgment, but at the time they merely seemed like the sockpuppeting edits I see all the time by others. —mattisse (Talk) 15:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"He's done it as well, so why pick on me" is probably just about the worst defence you could mount Mattisse. You do not occupy the moral high ground by aping the behaviours that you claim to be protesting against. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, of course people have reasons and explanations for doing things. When we lash out in frustration at something, it appears to us at the time that we have a valid reason for doing it. Later, when people point out that we were wrong, we learn not to do it again. By creating the CallMeNow account and saying this, you were misbehaving. It was an inappropriate thing to do, and in doing that you have created drama, been offensive to another user, let yourself and others down (I feel somewhat embarrassed that I have defended and still defend you when you do things like that), and you have distracted from our main purpose and what you are so good at, and that is building the encyclopedia. What I'd like to see you do now is stop making excuses for your action - take responsibility, realise you did an inappropriate thing, apologize for what you have done and reassure us you won't do it again. SilkTork * 15:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I let you down

• I am very sorry I let you and others down. I was not lashing out in frustration, however. That was not my emotion. Really, I thought of it as a playful trick. I understand that others do not see it that way. I had no reason to "lash out in frustration". Maybe "lashing out" in discouragement. I have never had interactions with Bishonen. I have been watching all the sockpuppeting and wanted to make a point. I really did not think it was a serious act that would bring about this type of punishment. I also though warnings had to precede blocks. The fact that I have let you down means I should not be editing at Misplaced Pages. I have been trying very hard and I have failed. I am very sorry for that. I failed, not because I was "lashing out" but because I really do not understand the rules. The community did not follow my ArbCom plan so it was hopeless anyway. I thought the plan was supportive and would help me understand these finer points that I do not seem to get, but in the end I was not protected from arbitrary punishment. So I am gone from Misplaced Pages. I can hever hold my head up here again after this. I do have some pride and I have tried to do a good job and further the encyclopedia. But I have failed. To be honest, I am not capable of doing much better than I was doing. I will always make mistakes. If my plan did not work, if I am blocked for two weeks over what I did, then I am unfit to be here and cannot continue. —mattisse (Talk) 16:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Another course of action would be to wait out the two weeks, and perhaps wait a bit longer if you think it prudent, and then come back and resume your good work here. You are not perfect, and the system is not perfect either. It is a fact that some people on Misplaced Pages do indeed get special treatment, and while I don't agree with your methods, or for that matter your targets, I do agree that there is some validity to the claim of a double standard. I would very much like it if you asked me to replace the {{retired}} tag on your user page with a {{wikibreak}} tag. Chillum 16:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that Chillum is probably offering good advice. Although I believe that the punishment is excessive for the crime, it's apparent that a significant body of others do not, and that if the block length is reduced then the ArbCom case is quite likely to be reopened, which would certainly not have a good outcome for you Mattisse. Some of us have to be more careful in what we do than others, who are given more leeway; just the way it is. I can't change that, you can't change that. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Why I remained after the ArbCom was that ArbCom realized that I had been treated unfairly, that it was a two-way street and it was not my behavior that was entirely at fault but others also. They said I had been baited. They noted in their decision that even during the ArbCom, certain editors continued to "snipe" at me. They were trying to protect me from this type of arbitrary punishment and heckling I was receiving before by providing me with mentor/advisers in my plan User:Mattisse/Plan. The fact that ArbCom and the plan could not protect me means it is hopeless. But thank you for your thoughts. —mattisse (Talk) 17:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your persistent misrepresentation of the events at and surroundoing that ArbCom case are at the root of your ongoing problems. No rational person would come to the conclusions that you have about what ArbCom recognised, or that they were in any way trying to protect you from anything. I'm very much afraid that until you hold your hand up and admit that you have been at least as much at fault as those you believe have been "sniping" at you—with no "ifs", "buts", or "it wasn't really my fault, I was provoked"s—the situation is hopeless, and you will end up being banned. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't that the plan did not "protect" you, it was that you acted in ways which are, generally, not found acceptable. Bishonen, particularly with Bishzilla and its alleged spawn, is more or less a known quantity, particularly with Bishzilla's clearly over-the-top way of speaking style. Whether the actions of those particularly accounts in question were appropriate is a separate matter, and it really isn't anyone's place to respond to them personally, and particularly not to try to make any sort of point, but rather to refer such matters to the appropriate "authorities". I'm not sure what if anything the blocking admin would do if there were a request to shorten the period of the block, but right now, there are as I see only two options of what others could do. What you do is of course up to you.

• 1) If the blocking admin saw real evidence that you regretted the actions which led to the block, and believed you would be unlikely to engage in such behavior again, there is a chance, although I'm not necessarily sure how good of a one, that the block might be shortened. I wouldn't try to rely on that too much.
• 2) The other is to basically, just wait out the two weeks.
• Regardless of which option comes to be, I very much think that based on your own statements you were trying to prove a point, and there really is no purpose to such actions around here. Basically, I and all the other admins and senior editors already know that there are inconsistencies and occasional unreasonable deference in the system to some editors. There's no real point in trying to prove a point everybody accepts already. Misplaced Pages does not and never has existed in a perfect world, and it has its flaws as much as anything else does. What we should try to do is try to take direct potentially productive action to address those matters when we can, and, if for whatever reason that doesn't work, and we all know that at times it doesn't, just carry one anyway. The only real point we have to prove here is that the information we gather and present to the world is the best that a collaborative body of this nature can produce. The internal politics are really not something we should even want to do much about, particularly not on our own. We have the various governance bodies for that. You are probably one of the best editors we have in what you do, and we would be very much the worse off if you were to leave, voluntarily or involuntarily.

I would personally suggest that at this point, if you think you can give the blocking admin a reason to shorten the block, that you do so. Otherwise, the best thing to do is wait the block out and return when it's expired. God knows there are a ton of articles out there in less than good shape, any of which you could find material on to improve in that time.

You could always take the time off to have a break from this place, which something most of us need regularly. I know for myself there are a rather distressingly large number of items from The Teaching Company I would like to access. You could always do something like that. Alternately, if you still wanted to spend the time doing something related to this site, maybe working on developing one of our less impressive articles might be the best way to spend the period, as it would give you a bit of a break from your routine. John Carter (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I only yesterday realized Bishonen and Bishzilla were the same person. I do not know all the politics behind regarding her and I don't get what is going on there, the baby talk etc. But the sockpuppets were already known, just like Geogre's were, to the special group. I think the blocking admin is one of those protecting that special group, judging from the posts. She posted that she had no conflicts with me when he notified her he was blocking me. I do regret what I did, and would never have done it if I thought it was serious. I realize now that it was trying to prove a point, and that trying to make a point is wrong on Misplaced Pages. But I believe he will not reduce the block, as probably it is in revenge for my speaking up at Geogre's ArbCom and makes Giano happy. I should have known I would be punished for that. Very stupid of me, but I did not connect the dots.
• I will not return to Misplaced Pages after two weeks. There is no way I would do that. Other users I respected have left for the same reasons and stayed away. Besides, it would be breaking the terms of my ArbCom to say that I was leaving and then come back. That was one of the accusations against me, that I do not keep my work in such matter. I will keep my word.
• I will try emailing him that I am sorry and ask if he will reduce the block. If not, then I am gone, if there is no other appeal I can make. And apparently there is not.
• I do thank you for all of your help. It has meant a lot to me. I have a very high opinion of you.

Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• "I think the blocking admin is one of those protecting that special group ... I believe he will not reduce the block, as probably it is in revenge for my speaking up at Geogre's ArbCom and makes Giano happy." For Christ's sake Mattisse, you're just not getting it, are you. There you go making more accusations against all and sundry when you need to be showing some understanding that what you have done is unacceptable. So what if someone else is doing it as well, without being similarly punished? Does that excuse your behaviour? No it fucking doesn't. You either have to shape up or ship out now, there are no other options. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you do return Mattisse, please check out WP:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point before doing so. Think about the number of editors who have been diverted from improving the encyclopedia by your actions, and all the talk page comments and arguments this has generated. You've received a lot of good advice in the last 24 hours. What have you learned? (PS. The wrong answer is "everyone's out to get me".) Geometry guy 21:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom findings regarding my behavior

I believe ArbCom is saying the important dimensions of my behavior that need to be addressed are the following:

1. I cast aspersions.
2. I personalize the routine remarks of others.
3. I make accusations and personal attacks on others.
4. I have accused a group of editors of cabalism. I composed a list including these editors among others.
5. I continue to comment long after an issue is resolved and this is considered POINTy.
6. I make statements that I will no longer participate in a particular forum but I have returned to that forum.

• Note. Regarding casting aspersions:

• This applies to people commenting on Mattisse as well as Mattisse commenting on others. Civil behaviour is required both ways here, as is use of dispute resolution, rather than sniping, bringing up old disputes, and returning to previous behaviour. Some have pursued dispute resolution here. Others have sniped. -Carcharoth.
• This was noted in other places in the Decision and supported by another Arbcom member.

The sniping has started up in the last weeks, even personal attacks and uncivil comments by others. They broke the rules above but I did not. I have not engaged in the above behaviors to my knowledge, and if close, I have followed my mentor's advice. Making a joking sockpuppet statement was "impolitic" and very poor judgment, but it was not made with malice by rather to make fun. I am not malicious like some of the statements made to and about me lately. And I have not sniped, as others do to me. There are those who will not rest until I am gone. They want things their way and occasionally I have a different opinion, so I must be denigrated and snuffed out. ArbCom was trying to level the playing field, but they could not do it. It is too bad, but I see there is to much of network out to get me and it is hopeless. There is nothing I can do to stop this. This incident drains all hope. —mattisse (Talk) 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sniping and casting aspersions: , (edit summary), , .
• Accusations of cabalism:

None of these could remotely be construed as "playful" or "joking". You used sockpuppets to cast these aspersions, then acted evasively when called on it, and finally offered unnamed and uncited "attacks" on you as justification. Your statement that others "broke the rules but I did not" suggests that you see nothing problematic in your actions. I see that your mentors have raised some of these concerns above. I am strongly opposed to shortening this block, to the point that I would strongly encourage any admin considering doing so to submit the matter for community review before acting. If there is reason to think that this sort of thing will continue after the 2-week block expires, then I will raise the issue with the Arbitration Committee. This is unhealthy. MastCell  18:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I do see my sockpuppets are problematic. I admit that the sockpuppet was extremely ill considered and I regret it. Because I saw so many sockpuppets, with some users knowing and some not, I did not think it was a big deal. Geogre used his to harass and stack opinion, and apparently many in the community knew he was doing it. He was not even blocked for the sockpuppeting. In fact, his alternate account, the sockpuppet was unblocked so he could continue to use it. I was harmed by his alternate accounts over time as I explained at his ArbCom. So it never occurred to me that what I did was that serious. If my block is not reduced, I will not be back editing on Misplaced Pages. You have my word on this. —mattisse (Talk) 18:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• You perceived Geogre's alternate account as deeply inappropriate and hurtful (). You also expressed concern at other accounts which you believed to be sockpuppets targeting you (). Obviously, you consider such a practice reprehensible when directed at you. It therefore rings false that you thought it was "no big deal" to target someone else in this fashion.

  Additionally, you were asked one month ago to "stay well away from any discussions related to Geogre/Giano/Bishonen". You agreed to do so (). Your subsequent use of sockpuppets to target these editors renders your agreement meaningless at best. It also calls into question the value of your commitments to amend your behavior, which tend to be made only under duress to begin with. MastCell  19:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Geogre's alternate account played a large role in my problems at FAR and thus, over time was partly responsible for ArbCom on me. That was why it was hurtful, all the more so as the other players of the game knew who he was. His alternate account harmed me in several different situations and made me look bad, so that others piled on against me. The sockpuppet gang who targeted me did so over more that a six month period, started and RFC against me, too man AN/I's too count, resulted in several mediations, and ultimately let me to an ArbCom in which YellowMonkey caught the pack of them. Meanwhile I had such a bad rap from all these groundless accusations, and was unjustly blocked because of sockpuppet complaints, that in every situation from then on I was assumed to be wrong. That is the baggage that led me today. So, yes, I saw Bishonen's "playful" socks aimed at Jimmy Wales as in somewhat different category as I did mine, which was a one time deal. Of course, as I realized yesterday, Geogre (whose arbcom I provided evidence in), Giano, and Bishonen are are all together. I just didn't connect the dots until yesterday. But perhaps Bishonen's and mine are in the same category as Geogre and the sock pack. And I guess I am being punished for the Giano, Bishonen, Geogre connect. In any event, I most likely will not be editing, as my block is unlikely to be reduced and you see all the nastiness. Though people keep telling me I am one of the most productive editors on Misplaced Pages, and one of the most helpful, there are editors dedicated to destroy me. —mattisse (Talk) 19:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia's supportive posts

• Edit to Malleus Not true. There were "key" editors, and those are on the "committee", plus one who "turned it down" allegedly–one third. So you thing it is a "coincidence"? Name those who were more key. It is enough for me to lose my new found faith in ArbCom. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Edit to SandyGeorge Just don't actually check if the sources say what they purport in FAR! Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations|Ownership issues on an encyclopedia that supposedly anyone can edit. There are watch dogs with pitchforks. That is what YellowMonkey is saying, among other things, although censorship may prevail.—mattisse (Talk) 18:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)]

• My edit deleted by SandyGeorgia

• Comment to LinNut on my talk page I think someone is stalking me. That was one, sole, edit to an article that was not at FAR. So what was the point of the comment? The discussion is about articles at FAR. So what did that one edit prove? You tell me. —mattisse (Talk) 01:37, 13 August 2009
• At FAR Very disengenuous. That article was not at FAR. —mattisse (Talk) 01:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• At FAR (in response to SlimVirgin who agreed) (ec) Its funny that the requirements for citation in GA are WP:V also - exactly the same as FAC! You would expect FAC to be stricter (the GA people are under that impression), but no! —mattisse (Talk) 20:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• On James Joyce - required
• On FAR Or rule that only Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations] can nominate, and make the rest of us ineligible.]
• On FAR I do. When these type of familiar accusations start to fly, and my name is listed as on of "the top three nominators are responsible for 24 (47.1%) of all FAR nominations", I know it is time to jump ship, just as I did with FAC (where currently I copy edit only very, very rarely now. And even then, it seems to become mired on controversy. Other places I contribute a lot, like DYK and GAN, I get medals for a large amount of contributions. I think I will return to greener pastures. —mattisse (Talk) 14:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• To YellowMonkey The question is if the "FA" status can be counted upon to confer a specific level of quality, or is it a loose designation that is, more or less, inherited from the past and does not guarantee anything. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia's supportive posts2

Further diffs, accusations of stalking, personalizing and derailing FAR discussions, failure to AGF, pointy posts, edit warring, and accusations of a class sytems and cabalism, all after the ArbCom closed: , , , , , , , , . Any one of these diffs, taken alone, is not highly problematic, but taken in the context of your ArbCom and Plan, show that you still haven't understood what behaviors lead you to trouble. What concerns me most is that your mentors (with the exception of Malleus) have often turned a blind eye rather than helping you understand. Do they not understand that there are enough diffs showing that the problems have continued to justify re-opening the ArbCom? They aren't helping you if they don't point this out. Mattisse, I hope you will take a few weeks off, completely walk away for a while, and re-think your approach to Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm not sure what your understanding is of the Plan that Mattisse drew up, and the role of those who signed up to it, but most of those involved made clear here that we were not to overlook Mattisse's edits, but were available to give honest advise and opinion when requested. My wording was: "My role, as I understand it, is to be notified by Mattisse when she is encountering conflict, and to give her an unbiased assessment of the situation." The current situation here is very regrettable, and I think most of us are making it clear to Mattisse that we do not approve of her actions. But that she has done this has nothing to do with any of us, anymore than it has to do with any of the ArbCom members who agreed the plan. This is down to Mattisse herself. I think it would be helpful for all concerned if Mattisse be allowed to take responsibility for her own mistakes. While I am prepared to stand by her and continue to be her friend, that does not mean that I take responsibility for her mistakes. Those are her own. Just as I don't take responsibility for her copy-editing skills. Those are her own.

If at any time in future you feel that Mattisse is engaging in unseemly conduct, it might be helpful to contact myself or any of the others who signed up to the plan. We could look into it, and give Mattisse our views on what is happening. If you or others do not alert us to potential problems then in all likelihood we will miss it, as we are not watching Mattisse, nor have we been required to do that. SilkTork * 22:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

and yet, none of you can monitor her own user talk page? She just created these three sections, aimed at me (remember the Plan ... no plague lists ... ) with a derogatory and false edit summary, and unless you've done it privately (which seems counterproductive), no one yet has called her on it. I rest my case. I have no intentions of taking this back channel, where none of us knows if any of you are doing anything helpful. EVERY instance I have pointed out is on pages I have, and must because of my "job" as FA delegate, routinely followed for years, yet she continues to allege stalking and you all continue to overlook breaches of her plan posted to her own talk page. At a minimum, I would think her mentors would notice breaches of her plan on her own talk page, and this is more than once that she's done it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree that Mattisse has fairly proven all ArbCom complaints here on this page, just in one day. Very impressive. Furthermore, following a monumental cock-up GAR, I had an email exchange over several days with one of Mattisse's mentors. I was in turn furious, understanding, and provocative pleading and urging this editor to be proactive and confrontational when Mattisse exhibited disruptive behaviors and posts interpreting Misplaced Pages policy that no reasonable person could possibly claim to be true, and certainly not someone with over 5,000 edits, much less 50,000. I was told to stay away from Mattisse and that I should not provoke or confront her, after she decided to display some of the most incompetent understanding of GA criteria I have ever witnessed.

I did send this, however, in my last message sent on August 18: "By all of her mentors refusing to step in and tell her that she is wrong, you marginalize the efforts of good editors like ... and further reinforce the same problematic behavior. Why should she stop? None of her mentors have stepped in to say, 'Mattisse, no reasonable person could interpret policy this way. Participate in this discussion to improve the article or leave.' No one is taking a hard line to represent that there are issues beyond individual editors like Mattisse or me. I don't see any effort to reform disruptive behavior, just praise for neutral or good acts. That is simply not effective in any any psychological or pedagogical arena." (Ellipses for other users I named.) --Moni3 (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Moni3, sorry that you remain bitter about my comments about your GA Münchausen by Internet GA at the Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Münchausen by Internet/1 and felt that you had to post on my talk page berating me. I was just one opinion. Others were free to disagree with me but they did not regarding the articles GAR status. I will dig out, if necessary, where you were uncivil and personally attacked me. And were asked by another editor to strike you uncivil comments, which you did not, as I recall. My way or the highway is not a good GAR strategy, nor is declaring your article is a GA in the face of opposition. I gave you my suggestions. Further, I was merely agreeing with Malleus I think you are once again descending to personal attack with the above "after she decided to display some of the most incompetent understanding of GA criteria I have ever witnessed" to characterize me. I think that is the kind of thing the ArbCom meant when they said "sniping" at me was occupying during the Arbcom, Moni3.

]—mattisse (Talk) 23:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure bitter can quite accurately characterize the way I view you or my own actions. I am now deeply regretting I ever attempted to encourage any leeway during your ArbCom case. I considered my own anger at your preposterous posts that landed you at ArbCom to be as much a personal failing as it was your own astonishingly bad judgment. Call it what you will: idealism, optimism, or idiocy that I truly thought you would want to participate here to improve content and not use policy or review processes to pursue your personal and imaginary vendettas against other editors. You included me on your Torture list for your own reasons that only you can fathom. I don't know how you could possibly dig yourself further into the hole you're in, but listing all the times I have persecuted you will make it deeper. I didn't think I should have to remind anyone with your experience what GA criteria actually were, but I was wrong. So I should remind you that you have requested an admin post that you are retired. You continue to post here, very much like #6 in your ArbCom complaint. --Moni3 (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say "bitter" characterizes your appearance from my point of view. Because I requested clarification of a legal statement in your Harvey Milk FA, you have posted against me at every opportunity and became, considering your involvement with me, overly emeshed in my arbitration. Now you have posted on my talk page and here because of one GAR that did not go your way. And I was not the decision maker on that GAR. I merely posted an opinion and you dragged to my personal talk page. I would say that is not neutral behavior. —mattisse (Talk) 23:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the message is quite clear. If I dare to come back there is another Arbitration coming. I do not have the foresight or the will or the ability to collect diffs like Sandy does. As you can see, if I say anything, that is grounds for her collection. There is no way I can survive on Misplaced Pages in the future. She is using my talk page to start the arbitration. The wonderful world of Misplaced Pages. Where does assume good faith come in. Were my comments, posted above by Sandy and probably culled from 15,000 edits or so since the arbitration, really that bad (if you really do assume good faith? Why do they all have to do with FAR when YellowMonkey has had no complaints? Well, I am done for, obviously. Attack me, attack my panel, attack arbcom. If I did that I would be blocked all over again. —mattisse (Talk) 22:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What AGF actually says: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. --Moni3 (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that applies equally to you and SandyGeorgia. I think the arbcom saw that in your comments there. I am to blame for all the failures, bad feelings, lack of reviews, etc at FA, FAR, GA, GAR, as you both have made clear. Do you think driving me off of Misplaced Pages will solve all you problems? —mattisse (Talk) 23:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If it isn't inappropriate to offer a few words, experienced mentors often find it difficult to keep up with unexpected developments. This included a mentorship where the other two-thirds of the team included a steward and an administrator who later got elected to ArbCom. Things can happen quickly in wiki-time. It really does help to give a mentor a heads-up. Today, for example, my sole remaining mentoree got warned by two administrators for altering another person's posts. The actual problem was probably a ban-evading post by a sitebanned user, which neither of those administrators knew about and the mentoree did not know how to articulate. None of them thought to notify me. I left a followup message at the mentoree's user talk and have been debating whether it's worth the trouble to chase down both administrators. An ounce of prevention is usually worth a pound of cure in these situations. That might not help today's dilemma, but here's hoping it's useful in future. With respect extended toward all parties, Durova 23:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia's supportive posts3

Bad posts about FAC :If the criteria were to encourage, rather than require, FA compliance, most people would still do it. The thing about forcing people is it creates a bad atmosphere, it's demoralizing, and it gives people the green light to nitpick, which not all reviewers do (most don't), but some do. Kirill, can you give an example of the kind of style thing that might be lost, wikiproject-wise.