| Revision as of 16:46, 1 March 2010 editSlp1 (talk | contribs)Administrators27,803 editsm →Blocked indefinitely: fix← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:10, 1 March 2010 edit undoRegentsPark (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,689 edits →Blocked indefinitely: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
| In my view a very long block, even an indefinite block, is appropriate. Enough is enough. I personally always try to hold out some hope for eventual rehabilitation, though it is instructive to check old versions of Mattisse's talkpage (see this one, for example, that I picked at random from 2006 ), and see how little has changed in the years she has edited here. But if it an unblock does occur, I suggest that this does not happen for long time (a year?) and only with very stringent conditions. --] (]) 16:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | In my view a very long block, even an indefinite block, is appropriate. Enough is enough. I personally always try to hold out some hope for eventual rehabilitation, though it is instructive to check old versions of Mattisse's talkpage (see this one, for example, that I picked at random from 2006 ), and see how little has changed in the years she has edited here. But if it an unblock does occur, I suggest that this does not happen for long time (a year?) and only with very stringent conditions. --] (]) 16:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| There is no way to spin this. I don't like to comment on intent but it is fairly obvious that at least one account actively harassed one of Mattisse's "enemies". Using alternative accounts deceptively, and in a manner that avoids scrutiny, is something that all editors know is a strict no-no. I don't know about the block, but clearly, to the extent that it is a two-way street, mentorship is pretty much a dead deal here. --] (]) 17:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:10, 1 March 2010
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
- Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
- Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?
 |
|---|
| 24 December 2024 |
|
| Peer reviews with no or minimal feedback |
|---|
|
|
|
|
If your review is not in the list of unanswered reviews, you can add it. |
No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online |
| This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
|
|
Myitsone Dam
Mattisse, Thanks for your many constructive edits on Myitsone Dam which is now advanced to Prep area 2, thanks to you. I hadn't looked at the article for several days and have been working on Dams in Burma and Weigyi Dam, neither of which are ready for the main space. If you are interested, you are welcome to work on those articles in my user spaces. I bit off more than I can chew with these Burmese Dams. I should be back in my usual territory, Protected areas of Tamil Nadu. -Marcus334 (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 23:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- OK. I had no idea. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's nothing to worry about. We just try to ensure that everybody is aware of the special circumstances. --TS 23:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Edited to Mount St. Helens
I think a more appropriate tag to put near an inline cite that goes to a webpage where a story has been moved or pulled would be something akin to dead link, not failed verify. It was a simple matter to verify after going to archive.org. ---mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 04:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Dead link is misleading, as the link checker will frequently show such a link as good. As far as I know there is no tag for "moved or pulled" as you suggest. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Arthur Stayner
|
On February 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Stayner, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Blocked indefinitely
For running multiple accounts per a checkuser, and attempting to continue to attack another user, I have indefinitely blocked this account. SirFozzie (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Is there no doubt about this? Could you not be mistaken? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- We've had several people look at this, persuant to other issues, and they've signed off on it. SirFozzie (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Is there any details of this? I've looked in a few places and could not see reference. What was the puppet account? --Salix (talk): 08:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Accounts. One minute, I'll tag them. SirFozzie (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that Charles Rodriguez (talk · contribs) is a sock. Oh dear Mattisse I would have hopped you would have learnt by now that sockpuppets is not the way to go.--Salix (talk): 09:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- We really didn't need the checkuser to confirm as the account uses the same unique language and words as Mattisse, a style that only she uses. It's disheartening because many of us were hoping Mattisse would change her spots and pull through. Mattisse, if you are reading this, please remember that you don't need this kind of negative attention. If you come clean and apologize, I would be happy to support your return. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that Charles Rodriguez (talk · contribs) is a sock. Oh dear Mattisse I would have hopped you would have learnt by now that sockpuppets is not the way to go.--Salix (talk): 09:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well that's just dandy; want to put me through another two years of this while I AGF my pollyanna arse into Wiki-oblivion? This is the third time she's done this socking ... that we know about ... I'm glad you're happy to welcome her return ... in the meantime, I work my arse off for Wiki, and had no clue I was working against Mattisse's grudges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Amended. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I understand you are upset, and you hit upon the problem: Mattisse holds grudges, and she needs to let go of them, starting now. It's unlikely she will be unblocked unless she can do this. And we all know she isn't going to disappear, so it is reasonable to ask her to come clean under this account, rather than play whack-a-mole for the next several years. She obviously likes to edit here, but for some reason none of us can figure out, she has interpersonal conflicts that remain unresolved. I know that Misplaced Pages is not therapy, and given her past, I also know that it is very unlikely that Mattisse will be unblocked in the foreseeable future. But, I also think it is important to keep the lines of communication open. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- you do that ... in the meantime, I've have had a good lesson in the limitations of AGF, and no one should ever have to endure this again. wake up and smell the roses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm awake, and they smell wonderful. Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- you do that ... in the meantime, I've have had a good lesson in the limitations of AGF, and no one should ever have to endure this again. wake up and smell the roses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
If Mattisse is to be unblocked, I would recommend returning to User:Mattisse/Plan or the arbitration case and adding an explicit section about sock-puppets. Something along the line of any further use of sock-puppets will result in a permanent ban from wikipedia. Mattisse seems to need very strict boundaries with clearly spelt out consequences.--Salix (talk): 11:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose lifting this block under any circumstances. This user has displayed a long-term pattern of accepting consequences and conditional returns, only to walk away from mentors and return to previous editing behavior at the drop of a hat. We should no longer accommodate this user. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am astounded to wake to this, and to see that one mentor is questioning the block,, that others are discussing conditions for possible unblock (above) and Philcha is proposing a revision to the Mattisse's Plan that would actually have the effect of preventing her from ever being indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.
- To quickly review the situation, Mattisse is subject to an July 2009 arbcom mandated plan which places behavioural limits on Mattisse including avoidance of assumptions of bad faith, personalizing conflict, disruptive point-making and questioning the motivations of others. She has had several mentors/advisors working with her. A clarification of the Arb Com motions in December 2009 noted requirements that she "not make any remark about another editor on Misplaced Pages that could be seen as negative without first consulting her mentors/advisors" and placed her under conduct probation for one year. The closing comments of two arbitrators warned her about the seriousness of any repetition of problematic behaviour.
- Mattisse also has a long history of creating impermissible, abusive sockpuppets, starting in 2006 and most recently, until this incident, in August 2009 when she was blocked for two weeks for creating sockpuppets to attack another user. Now it appears that Mattisse has created two new sockpuppets, which were used separately to edit Venezuelan articles where SandyGeorgia, an editor with whom she has been in past conflict, has been active. The user:Charles Rodriguez puppet denied being a sockpuppet, pretended to be a new editor and engaged in a series of posts on the talkpage of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary) and on the Rodriguez talkpage including which break multiple aspects Mattisse's Plan (assumptions of bad faith, personalizing of issues, questioning of motivations etc) And one also presumes that she did not, as she is required to do, contact her mentors/advisors before making the negative comments about others, or indeed about creating the socks themselves. If these edits had made under her own account they would have certainly attracted alerts to her mentors, and I presume action from them. These sockpuppets were clearly used to evade scrutiny and to circumvent sanctions, including conduct probation imposed by Arbcom.
In my view a very long block, even an indefinite block, is appropriate. Enough is enough. I personally always try to hold out some hope for eventual rehabilitation, though it is instructive to check old versions of Mattisse's talkpage (see this one, for example, that I picked at random from 2006 ), and see how little has changed in the years she has edited here. But if it an unblock does occur, I suggest that this does not happen for long time (a year?) and only with very stringent conditions. --Slp1 (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no way to spin this. I don't like to comment on intent but it is fairly obvious that at least one account actively harassed one of Mattisse's "enemies". Using alternative accounts deceptively, and in a manner that avoids scrutiny, is something that all editors know is a strict no-no. I don't know about the block, but clearly, to the extent that it is a two-way street, mentorship is pretty much a dead deal here. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)