User talk:LessHeard vanU

Mattisse

I know you said you were tired of dealing with him... but now he is making threats of retaliation against me on his talk page see this dif. He seems to think it was my fault that you blocked him. I am not going to respond to him. All I want is to back out of this mess. Please help. Blueboar 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bluebore ...sigh

Sigh...I agree with Bluebore. This small issue has once again been blown out of proportion by Cyborg Ninja and the success she has achieved by being th messenger between Bluebore and PalanceGuard and the support, as they saw it, by your taking sides. If they will just stop talking about it I am more than happy to do so. It is a petty issue. I long ago conceded their copy/paste tactics worked despite policy. I is clear there is nothing I can do. I do not expect fairness. Lets drop it. I have been given a long list of anti-wikipedia links, and I think I will take my energies there. I have head those links are much more rewarding that these small minded preoccupations incouraged by admins who love wielding power. --Mattisse 03:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

More sighing

Please ask him to just drop it. No one else beside you, Cyborg Ninja, Blueboar and PalacGuard008 is interested.

I have asked you to clarify exactly what I did wrong, as PlalaceGuard008 and Blueboar are prolonging this and continuing it. Since I do not know what I did wrong I would appreciate an explanation. When Cyborg Ninja gets back in the ring (it is she who filled the mediation) then it is likely to escalate further. Please explain specifically what I did wrong (not diffs of long paragraphs where I cannot tell if you are saying if anything I said was O.K. in your eyes or only certain portions. I need specifics. If a do not understand, then a real mess has been created, the outcome of your actions is waiting in the wings. Surely you will get involved in the mediation as you are a major factor now, due to your taking sides. Perhaps there you will provide the specifics, as the links you have given so far will not be considered helpful.

I will also explain that I spent one year on Wikipedia as a "nice" person always being polite and doing the right thing. That netted me pobably 15 t0 20 ANI complaints, got me labeled as a proven sock puppet (rediculous) and had me banned several times. This year, after the sock puppet ring after me returned and I realized that I would not get any help, I decided on the nasty approach. Unfortunately, the nasty approach works better. This is my first ban this year, and I do not think it is well substantiated. You still have not pointed out specific examples. Giving diffs to very long paragraphs is not helpful. Are you meaning every word I wrote in those long paragraphs were uncivil. Perhaps if I knew what you meant I would be in a better situation regarding understanding this. Now, I have no idea what you are talking about, as so much uncivil and personal attacks have been directed a me that do not count in you eyes. How can I tell the difference?

Please do clarify or I will never understand. Mattisse 03:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)}}

Dealing w/ talkpage harassment

Hi. You might recall the business between myself and G2bambino, back in August, and my consequent making of a user sub-page as a means of dealing with talk-page harassment. That sub-page has just been nominated for deletion. Whereas you were a witness to its making, and to the circumstances of and reasons for that making, I hope that you will comment at the deletion discussion. You seemed, at the time, to understand the page's worth and usefulness. If so, and if that remains your opinion, I hope you will support its keeping. So far, it seems to have discouraged further spiteful posts on my talk-page, and I wish that to carry on, as the least troublesome ways of handling such nuisances. Thanks.
-- Lonewolf BC 20:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Yeah I'm discussing the case in here. I'll remove his msg on Jimbo's talk after he get blocked. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 15:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't remove the msg, whether my account is blocked or not. If you want to remove the msg on Jimbo's talk, discuss with User :LessHeard vanU as a separate issue.Kelbaster 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal should usually be done by an uninvolved party, per discussion elsewhere or not. As an involved party you should only act to refute the accusation and draw attention to any relevant discussion - unless you gain consensus at sockpuppet discussion for removal. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 15:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your block and more

You continue to become involved in issues over Mattisse whenever she notifies you, though I and you yourself have noted that because of your previous involvement over the drapetomania article, you may have a conflict of interest. As for the supposed "personal attack," Mattisse was talking about herself and I commented on how I didn't know they let "old ladies" on oil rigs. Mattisse referred to herself as a grandmother in the past. Calling someone "old" and a "lady" is inoffensive. If I called someone a "hag" or "on their death bed," then you would have a point. But unfortunately, nothing occurred here except your inability to properly manage your job at Wikipedia. Your ignorance of my attempts at mediating the arguments over the Caisson (Asian architecture) article and past attempts in helping Mattisse over drapetomania and psychiatry is disappointing. I would hope that someone of your position would accumulate a background of knowledge before taking such drastic attempts of warning and blocking other members. Also, your arbitrary decisions while ignoring evidence of the other party's violations is repulsive for me to see on a site such as Wikipedia. I hope that a formal review of your conduct will be undertaken, and in the meantime I will assemble evidence of improper conduct on both your part and Mattisse's on behalf of the populous of Wikipedians. - Cyborg Ninja 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. You do what you think is right. LessHeard vanU 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

New admin

See my SSP backlog note at AN, the brand new admin's response and my retort there and on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think your actions and comments are sufficient, nothing more needs doing for now. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 12:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse & Mediation

Hi, there's a mediation request pending at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Caisson (Asian architecture) concerning Caisson (Asian architecture), following the collapse of informal mediation after Mattisse stormed out. I have notified Mattisse on his talk page, but the notice seems to have been removed in one of the big deletions in recent days.

I wonder if you could remind Mattisse of the mediation request? I'm afraid she may not have noticed it when it got deleted, and I don't want to post again on her talk page, lest it provokes a reaction like the last time I posted. Thanks in advance, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed with 54 supports, 2 opposes and 3 neutrals. Thanks for your support, I really appreciate it. I hope to exceed expectations, If you have any advice please feel free to let me know. Thanks again!. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤

Thanks Mark

God bless Pal. Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

More trouble from 216.79.155.1

On 3 November you temporarily blocked User Talk:216.79.155.1 from editing, due to repeated removals of material. It now appears that he/she is at it again, only three days later. A large portion of the Controversy section of False Memory Syndrome Foundation was removed by 216.79.155.1, with no explanation. I left yet another warning on his/her Talk page, but I am skeptical that it will be read by the individual in question. No response necessary — please just do whatever you think appropriate. Cheers! —Aetheling 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: WP:AIV

I will take to WP:SSP, thank you. Bmg916^Speak 00:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Marie-Rose Mueller

Whether Wikipedia values supercentenarians or no, you can find them here:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/

Are you a member yet?Ryoung122 20:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Whippersnapper! ;~) LessHeard vanU 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Deal? I've switched it on! I'll make an effort to make edit summaries from now on :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Done! ;~) LessHeard vanU 01:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Smile

SJP:Happy Verterans Day! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

User:Hereinindy

Can you take a look at User:Hereinindy to see if that user is a sockpuppet? All the edits by that user are recent and vandalism. What's interesting, however, is that the edits were done with an obvious knowledge of WP. He/she uses templates, uses WP terminology (i.e., dab), includes misleading edit summaries, etc. The editor is almost certainly an experienced WP editor but the short edit history indicates the user was created for the purposes of vandalism.

If you are not available or not the right person, can you point me somewhere? John Cardinal 05:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI - WP:ANI#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action

I have begun a thread on Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at WP:ANI#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action, whom you blocked today. • Lawrence Cohen 18:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Nricardo

I just reset his block due to socks. Just to let you know. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your ability to think against the flow, which led the Privatemusings case to an amicable solution. — Sebastian 19:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to whomever...

...it was who altered my sig so my talkpage is appended. I had been meaning to do it since forever. -- LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Luay Salah al-Din

Fellow keeps re-creating that page. I CSD'd it and you deleted it and he's done it again. Scarian^Talk 13:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. Thank you for the delete(s). Have a nice day! Scarian^Talk 13:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, of course. Thank you for your time :-) Scarian^Talk 13:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA for Canadian Paul

Four years ago this day, a foreigner was voted by the community to serve a land that he loved. Today, a new foreigner humbly accepts the charge and support of serving a community that he loves. Hopefully, he won't disappoint. Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (47/0/1). The trust bestowed upon me by the community is one of the most touching honours that I have ever received, and I vow not to let you down. Whether you have suggestions for ways in which I could improve, a request for assistance or just need someone to listen, my talk page and my email are always open. I pledge to do what I can to help this project, in the words of a man who needs no introduction, "make the internet not suck." A special thank you goes out to Tim Vickers for nominating me. Cheers, CP 22:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. — Coren ^(talk) 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I need a favour!

Are you around? Scarian^Talk 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Aw, sorry! Ha, I have difficulty with patience so I got "Chase me ladies I'm the cavalry" to do the job for me. Although you can keep an eye on it? [1] Scarian^Talk 01:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Aye, if you could keep an eye on it? I've warned both chaps, navlos slightly more harshly, as he's acting defensivley, but it's nothing that tea can't fix. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of Academy Leader

Less, I am more than a little disappointed that you chose to issue me a warning, rather than attempting to discuss the disagreement first. The warning is a statement that you believe you are right and I am wrong. That's no way to begin a discussion. Considering that I had reviewed the 530 contributions of Academy Leader, and you had not looked at the matter yet, you might not have had as clear a picture as I did. Please look at the wording of good hand, bad hand accounts and you will see that the behavior of Academy Leader qualified as a bad hand sock puppet. He has another account in good standing that he is free to use. I hope this disagreement between us can be resolved informally. I have appreciated your perspectives in the past, and felt like this warning was hasty and uncharacteristic. If you refactor your remarks, I will be pleased to adjust mine accordingly. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

File:Dainsyng.gif You are always welcome at my talk page. I am sorry we had a bit of misunderstanding today. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

re Mattisse block

Hi LessHead vau! You should explain to Jehochaman that you are treating him specially that you even issued a warning to you!!!! You blocked me without warning quite a few hours after I had moved on from my conflict with another editor, and I lost a whole intricate article with many footnotes I had been writing in the meantime because when I tried to save it I learned, without any warning, that I was blocked. Perhaps you are an editor who does little article writing. Jehochaman appears to be one of the privileged ones as far as you is concerned! (You should take a look a MONOGO for a little reality check of what is blockable --- I have as many "contributions" as MONGO but I am not even eligible for the common decency Jehochman expects, never mind the extra special treatment MONGO gets.) Oh, well. It is good to be the king. Mattisse 17:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be LessHeard vanU - n, capital U - and MONGO - only two "O"'s -. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Thanks for the complete explanation. Your helpful spelling correction clears up everything. I will ask another to find out from you. Mattisse 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You were behaving quite disgracefully with User:Blueboar, to the point that he was feeling harassed, who had previously had offered to mediate in good faith. My block was preventative, in that you ceased interacting with that editor. I would refer you to my archive five, last item, for the diffs regarding the specific comments. I would, in the meantime, request that we both remove our last comments from Captain panda's RfA since it is unfair to use that as a venue. Please note that I am aware of your raising concerns, albeit obliquely, regarding my actions at various venues (as, ironically, has User:Cyborg Ninja) but have chosen to WP:IGNORE them so as not to escalate the situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pisky

I would use a -y, but I daresay there are huge arguments amongst Cornish-language revivalists about this! I appear to be back again! DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam

Hi, I see you've blocked then unblocked beh-nam recently, he is vandalising pages so why are you not doing anything to stop him? I request that he be blocked indef due to his disruptive behaviour who is and has been vandalising pages after pages of national leaders by falesly inserting that they were child molestor, slave owner, facists, etc.[2], [3] He's been vandalising Pashtun people and many other articles for a very long time.[4], [5], [6]

He keeps removing the official government website from Afghanistan/Hamid Karzai article [7] and usually placing over it anti-Afghanistan blog sites, this after an administrator (Future Perfect at Sunrise) has warned not to mess with again. [8], [9] If anyone adds images of popular Pashtun leaders in the Pashtun article he will revert the page right away, probably that he does not want Pashtuns to appear good in the eyes of others. He is ethnic Tajik, a Persian nationalist, and anti-Pashtun or Afghan as well as anti-Turk.[10] He has an unusual extended block history which includes 2 indefs for which he was allowed back on condition to stop harrassing or personally attacking another ethnic group.[11]

Same as all other vandals, he will never change and will continue with vandalising pages by writing all sorts of untrue things about leaders who are not from his ethnic group. He reverts everyone who fixes his vandalism without explaining anything.[12] Beh-nam is working closely with a banned User:Tajik (who is hiding under anon IPs that start with 82.xx.xxx.xxx which is confirmed by several admins including User:Dmcdevit‎ [13]) [14], [15], [16], and has User:Anoshirawan as his edit-war partner. He and his edit-war partner are going around changing the correct name Afghan (which is backed by the Constitution of Afghanistan, CIA world factbook, as well as all the government and media sites of the world) to a false afghanistani name simply because they like it. There is nothing that can be said to justify his actions, even if it comes from an administrator who knows him. Please ban this user indef so that the rest of us can have peace and finally fix all their vandalism slowly.--Hurooz (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't make a habit of keeping tags on editors I have sanctioned. As I recall I indef blocked per a report at AIV, but the block was reduced per a discussion on ANI which involved people more knowledgable than I - and I agreed to let them decide. That is all that I can remember. I don't have an answer for you since I do not know the details about the dispute. I regret that there are still divisions along ethnic, national, and political lines but I am not prepared to attempt to make choices between editors expounding different views. If there is an instance of obvious vandalism then I can act, but I leave it to others with more experience to decide upon the difficult areas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

I'm not offended or complaining. I'm scratching my head. :) How does typing slower help? Mercury 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It is an old joke, around the formula of "A (insert choice of ethnicity/culture/class here) Loving Mothers Letter to Her Favourite Son". In it she says that she is writing slowly since she knows he cannot read quickly... Other lines are, "This week it has only rained twice; once for 3 days and once for 4 days", "I was going to send you some money, but I have already sealed the envelope" and "Father has now installed the new washing machine; I put some clothes in, pulled the chain and we haven't seen anything of them since".

In retrospect it wasn't the most helpful comment/edit summary ever made, and I apologise for making it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Its fine, I did not make to correlation, it flew right over my head. :P Mercury 23:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your comments in my RfA and on my talk page regarding it. I agree that I will have to work on my mainspace contributions in order to have a successful RfA in the future. Hopefully, I will do that and have a successful RfA next time. :) Captain panda 21:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales

I think you did right thing. Neither my User:Neo. deserve to comment nor obvious sockpuppet User:Smilehalt deserve to comment there. Thanks. 195.189.142.200 (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The first comment was obvious (and I really hate both the word and concept, but it is apt) trolling and your response regarding WAS.520 - close enough? - disregarded the fact that he and Jimbo are already in discussion regarding related matters. That you are a self admitted sock did not help... Anyhow, it was only removed from the page and not the history. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Deception...

thanks for fixing the type-o. glad to see my articles being noticed by admin, i know its not much of an article, but im new to this. any pointers would be greatly appreciated File:FireFlames.jpgYes, I really am a Sith Lord ^(Comms) 00:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

halls of residence

Certainly they are not intrinsically or even usually notable, but they're not one of the things that can be removed on speedy as nn, according to WP:CSD A7; --many are copyvios, but if not, prod usually works DGG (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I did check for copyvio, and it was okay(ish). I will PROD next time. LessHeard vanU 09:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections comments

Good morning. Regarding your recent comments on the candidate votes page for Giano; unfortunately, the comments are too long and should be made at the voting talk page. The maximum length of comments on the voting page itself should be two short sentences. This determination was reached on prior consensus on the ArbCom Elections talk page. For your convenience, I have moved them appropriately, and have included a link from the vote page to the comment on the talk page - but feel free to edit my move to your preference. However, extended comments, like the ones you provided, are best placed on the talk page. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Thank you. - ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ta. I have reinstated one sentence from the moved text. LessHeard vanU 13:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Works for me - I would have, but didn't want to assume which sentence you'd choose. Thanks. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk

Actually I was the one who instituted the block, not him. I have replied to your comment at AN/I. Guettarda (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. Maybe I should read things a little more carefully :) Guettarda (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Penwith Wikiproject

Hi, I see you are a member of the Penwith Wikiproject. A proposal has been made to merge it with the Cornwall Wikiproject. You can join in the debate here. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

two questions

you deleted a stub i created on a band, Victory at Sea, due to lack of asserted notability; i'm just curious what would qualify for notability? they released five albums and played for ten years, have 80,000+ 'scrobbles' on last.fm, an article at allmusic.com (which i had linked in the stub), and played many respectable venues, though none of that information really seems appropriate for an article.

i also have a separate, unrelated question/suggestion: instead of simply disabling vandal's ip addresses from making changes temporarily, could we make it so that they themselves continue thinking theyre making changes, but the changes are only visible to them? it might require too much overhead or something, i dont know. i was just thinking, it seems like a vandal who thinks he/she is still making edits might be less persistent in their vandalism than someone who is periodically banned and then returns either when the ban is lifted or when they get to another ip address.

i know there is probably a better place to post such a suggestion, but im not involved enough really to know where, and i figure since youre an admin, i might as well mention it to you. anyway, i would prefer you respond at my talk page please, and i appreciate your time with either question. --Quietly (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the speedy response! my article almost certainly didnt qualify for notability, and theyre not such a huge band that finding reliable independent sources is easy, so ill look around, and if i can meet the criteria, ill recreate the article.

also, with the suggestion, what im trying to express is, right now, when someone repeatedly vandalizes articles, (whether as an anonymous ip or registered user), you, as an admin, might disable their editing abilities for some time, right? what if instead, for the same period of time, a bot followed around their edits and undid them minutes afterward? or i guess maybe youre saying that would discourage any faithful editing that someone might try to perform during that time as well... which i can agree with. anyway, thanks for the pointers.--Quietly (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

okay, i figured out that their last two albums were released on Gern Blandsten Records, which qualifies for notability. so is it possible to undelete the stub? it was at Victory at Sea (band) and shows up in the deletion log. if not, i can just re-start it. thanks again for your help. --Quietly (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the colon

i.e. [[Image:x]] versus [[:Image:x]]. Of course, there's all new body part humor in the colon as well.... -- Kendrick7^talk 18:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Mattisse and Psychopathy

I don't know who I should bring this to (I just posted to WP:AN/I] but you seem to be familiar with this editor. She (I just realised) started a rampage of disruptive editing on the Psychopathy article earlier today...at first it looked as if she was a bit POV, but as she has gone on it seems as though she is actually making up many of her claims as she goes along (though they look convincing at first). The best way I can put it is that she seems to be reinventing both the article's topic and WP protocol as she goes along VERY insistently. I know the subject middling well and a lot of the claims she make (with apparent authority) verge on the ridiculous. She is removing or inlining valid citations...it's all really WEIRD...--Zeraeph (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, unfortunately I don't HAVE a whole lot of time right now. I'll probably just have to leave her to it and recover the damage later. It'll be easier to make sure I explain it all properly on the talk page as a "block" rather than piecemeal, and less time consuming for me. It's also never a BAD idea to overhaul a stable article every once in a while. I have listed for "Third Opinion", and there are a couple of other pretty determined and knowledgeable editors who check in from time to time. --Zeraeph (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To give more information, she has actually tagged citations for citation at one point [17] and also commented them out [18] on the grounds that they do not refer to Psychopathy, when one of them refers to it even in the title and here, with the addition of uncited commentary [19]. She adds uncited commentary such as [20] . Adds a POV tag on grounds of "inaccurate references continue to be restored - the article mixes up UK and US practices & does not distinguish between research findings & clinincal practices" which has noting whatever to do with POV EVEN if it were true, which it doesn't seem to be. There is loads more. I am beginning to realise I made a BIG mistake reverting her at all, because if I hadn't. the pattern of her edits all together would have been bizarre. Here is an example of her rationales on the talk page [21] "not used in court rooms to diagnose real people" that's totally odd. So is this [22]

I feel like Alice down the rabbit hole. --Zeraeph (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you continue to seek a third opinion, or for help from some of the other contributors to the article. Has Mattisse previously edited this article? If so, had there been previous discussions about the validity of some of the references? Has there ever been discussions about the sources validity by anyone? If she hasn't previously edited the article then she does need to indicate why she believes consensus is wrong - even though having a fresh editor look at an article is often a benefit it is up to them to prove their viewpoint. It would help if you could get some previous article contributors to look over the exchanges, and see what their reactions are. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This was her only previous edit om talk (VERY POV, and not in line with available information) [23] which was answered here [24] (not by me). There has never been a dispute about any of the citations. Many were dredged up to establish points others disputed. I originally AGF about the Washington State legislature and just went looking for an alternate without checking it, only to find that it most certainly DID contain the reference, so I restored it, specifying why and she "fact" tagged it AGAIN, to me that is failure to AGF at best and potentially just disruptive. The references she commented out supported the statements they were supposed to support. She only had to check them. But she claimed the links were "503", they were not. --Zeraeph (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Firstly, not the model answer... I note from the talkpage header that there is a related project; have you asked there for some assesment of the discussion/edits?

I had forgotten that Mattisse claims to have qualifications in the field - I will not suggest conflict of interest, but I understand (from only the popular press, I admit) that there are several schools of thought regarding psychopathy. Perhaps she follows a type of thinking not reflected in the article? If she can supply sources for her contentions then it should be included, but I still feel that cited content should not be removed until she can convince others that it is wrong; Saying so aint enough. You really do need to get some counter-counter arguments lined up, and some other voices. Last of all, it doesn't matter if it takes a few days to sort out - it is better to go slowly and surely than to get into revert wars. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I only see WP:COI in the combination between her declared position on talk and her claim to work in the field. Certainly if she can find citations in accord with WP:MEDMOS to support her contentions they must be included, but her pattern has been to insert uncited commentary that reflects on and often distorts existing text. In one instance she inserted a block of uncited speculation followed by a cited comment of no relevance alone [25]. She even wants to remove the disease infobox!--Zeraeph (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said previously, you need to get a few more voices involved in the discussion over content - and to make the case that consensus requires argued change. Until there is a body of opinion that concludes Mattisses changes are incorrect or are otherwise damaging the article then this is a simple content dispute (and between only two parties). Once there is agreement that the pre Mattisse version is the consensus version then any non-consensual changes by her can be reverted as vandalism (no 3RR limitations, and possible sanctions for abuse). Of course, if consensus changes then the sources need to be found and cited... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your post

Re:[26], As soon as people construed that I explicitly and repeatedly made the appropriate clarification. The rumor persisted anyway despite my efforts to stop it. Durova^Charge! 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I concede that the impression was rebutted swiftly (even if not noted). My point remains that there are good faith reasons why someone may believe that all avenues have been explored and exhausted, and may therefore feel that bringing the matter to a wider public is necessary. Hopefully we are in a process of looking forward to possible scenarios rather than rehashing the recent past. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

AN/I request

Could you please take a look at the frivolous thread that Deeceevoice started on me, two threads above the Brendan one? It started out frivolous, as is indicated by the diffs I posted (DCV only pointed people to talk histories in her "complaint", no diffs). During the discussion, one of her supporters, Jeffpw chose to "out" me as a vanished user. It's there in the thread of the conversation, and has been for many hours. I'd appreciate a quick resolution of both the underlying "complaint" and the serious matter of Jeff revealing me as a vanished user. Mr Which??? 15:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Question on Brendan

I dipped my toe into this one after what I thought was a less-than-stellar block of Brendan for "outing" a guy who had made no secret of his identity right up until the point that Brendan supposedly "outed" him. I familiarized myself with WP:OUTING, and it talks about the fact that the attempted "outing" doesn't even have to be true (per the recent comments about Brendan's complaint about Shot Into). Just bringing that to your attention. There may actually be a breach of policy in this case. Mr Which??? 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You should take a quick peek at that policy. IMO, the violation of it by Shot Into was clearer than Brendan's, given that the person "outed" by Brendan had effectively "outed" himself through links on his userpage, which is explicitly covered in that policy. Mr Which??? 15:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A statement to that effect ("Brendan's block was less than stellar") needs to be made on the AN/I page, if only in the interest of fairness. Brendan (and those who defended him) took something of a beating for questioning this block. Mr Which??? 18:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please refactor

This - please find a more genteel way of expressing the sentiment. My heart's with you, but we should be setting the example. Durova^Charge! 16:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Zero tolerance for racist agendas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks is a policy, and not an optional one. Please reword that comment in a more civil fashion. Refraining from personal attacks is not tantamount to tolerating someone. 1 != 2 17:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• see Talk:Blair Peach. Any sanction against me in respect of my personal position regarding racists will be regarded as a badge of honour (and I hold no ill-will against anyone who exercises such sanctions, as I take the consequences of my actions). I don't abandon principles. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I discovered long ago that I have more success combatting bigotry by politely showing people a side of things they might not have considered before. Anger breeds anger; vulgarity breeds vulgarity. Sometimes I stand up and draw the line. It carries more clout to do so in a dignified manner. Durova^Charge! 01:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Help requested...

I accidentally created a category page (Category:Category:Christmas number-one singles) while trying to edit the page without the double "Category:Category:" prefix. Can you delete it for me? If not, do I have to propose it for deletion as page/category created by mistake? Thanks for any help/advice you can offer... John Cardinal (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Regarding your comment about some situations you couldn't help with, I still felt I had a friend in the business! <g> — John Cardinal (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Block

Yeah, accidentally used block3 instead of block1, fixed already :) BLACKKITE 16:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

British vs US spelling

You "corrected" the word grey to gray on the site about Rose and Malone. This is standard British spelling and is acceptable - especially on a page about a UK subject. Thank you.Daisyabigael (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

First Warning re Moneybomb

Thank you for the advice and warning. I will do as you ask, but calling some one "biased" is not very inflamitory. I have been trying to communicate with "HelloAnnoying" but he seems to be a "know-it-all" as soon as I post within seconds (30-60 sec.) he deletes them (sometimes before I have time to edit). I have tried to talk to him on his page. However when I post an on topic factual information all referenced, I do not expect him to troll. Nor I do not expect a personal vendetta either. --Duchamps comb (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Duchamps_comb

Wrong range

FYI, I left a comment at WP:ANI#Requesting 2 range blocks about the range block being incorrect. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Thanks for unblocking Ceoil. We need him badly over the next day or two because he is doing the final adjustments before sending Las Meninas to FAC so that he can respond to reviews over the holidays. It would not have served Wikipedia's interests to have him banned from editing during the present 48 hours. qp10qp (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded! Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I just enacted the consensus, and was only one voice among many there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

But you were cool and reasoned in dealing with the situation yesterday, and I'd like to thank you for that. Have a good christmas...Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if you misunderstood my point

But your own edit summary is much like mine. And what I can see of yours is really excellent work. Merry Christmas!SBHarris 01:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Chrissy Card(s)

Merry Crimbo Mark! Have a good one! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Great success! Thank you for supporting my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 53-3-2. Special thanks goes to Shalom for both the suggestion and the nomination. I'm honored by the trust that the community has shown in me, and will do my very best as an administrator. Thanks again! faithless (speak) 08:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ban of user User:88.248.17.92

Any chance you want to make this 1 week or even more? It seems like a SPA...--CastAStone/^/(talk) 15:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And maybe protect the talk page[27]?--CastAStone/^/(talk) 15:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Assassination article protection

There have been some questions on Talk:Benazir Bhutto assassination as to why the article was semi-protected and if the semi-protection is really needed. -- tariqabjotu 15:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi LessHeard, I've been contributing to this argument on the article talk page and on the admin noticeboard. Could you please unprotect the article and see how it goes for a while. Thanks. 86.31.35.135 (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Report at AIV

Ok, thanks for notifying me. I wasn't looking for any indefinite ban or anything of that sort, its just frustrating reverting and trying to communicate with a user that doesn't respond. I posted the similar report on ANI but a user requested i try SSP or AIV, either way, it looks like the user has stopped for now. If he continues to vandalize the page I'll just file a report at SSP. Thanks again. Happy holiday! -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  23:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For this. Durova^Charge! 01:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Dear LessHeard vanU, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).

Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.

Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E ^talk 12:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Zeraeph

I had to report User talk:Zeraeph to the 3_RRR today as within approximately two hours after her 28 day block was completed, she made 19 edits to Psychopathy, removing and rearranging my reference citations, refusing to discuss on the article talk page, removing my wording with edit summaries stating that I am wrong, incorrect information etc. and that she will get citations later. Is there another way of dealing with a person like this? She is making major use of material I wrote and distorting it to fit her goals. Her view is that this is her article and only edits she permits are allowed. Please advise. Regards, Mattisse 22:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

But what should I do? Helpful comments have been left on her page many times. In fact, you among many, told her to discuss and get consensus. She is refusing to discuss at all. Does this mean I cannot edit the article because it is hers? Since the 28 block had no effect, and since that block was just one of many in the past, will I never be allowed to edit the article? I am too scared to edit the article myself, as are other editors. Everyone I contacted said the best advice was to never edit the same articles she does. It seems hopeless. Regards, Mattisse 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, my 3-RRR request was denied because it was "malformed". I do not know what "malformed" is so I give up. There is no help here. I may try another admin - hope you don't think I am admin shopping, but this is so depressing and I feel so helpless. Mattisse 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer but it is in such a mess right now it is hardly worth it. I am not going to take the time and effort to bother with that article again. It was foolish of me. This is why I no longer do anything but write my own articles. Getting involved with this one was an exception and proves again why not to edit other articles. I had Barnstars galore (if you look on my userpage) for copy editing and got several articles to FA. But no longer is my goal to help Wikipedia as this sort of thing over Psychopathy is the inevitable result. I will stay away from Psychopathy, as I have been warned by other editors to do, and write my own articles.

Could you explain what "malformed" means? How do I submit one that is not malformed? Sincerely, Mattisse 23:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I gave diffs for 19 edits in 2 hours directly after her 28 day block ended. If that is not enought, then nothing is. Mattisse 23:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi, just to let you know that I've left a note on Talk:Psychopathy asking that someone explain the dispute to me, and I'll keep an eye on things there. Thanks for letting me know about it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at SV's page - everyone is fed up - please read this

[28]

• (copied from Slim Virgins page)

-- User:Zeraeph question --

Since you seem to have developed some repertoire with User:Zeraeph, I was hoping you would help out now. Her 28 day block expired today, and she immediately made 19 contentious edits to Psychopathy, making edit summaries like, "this is wrong", "incorrect", etc. but refusing do discuss on the article talk page, as she says she is right and that is that. I reported her to 3-RRR but it was declined as "malformed". I do not know what that means. Do you have any advice as to how to handle this? Now she is taking information I put in the article and mistaking it, and she is moving citations around in a misleading way. Is it true, as everyone says, that none of her article's can be edited by anyone else? Regards, Mattisse 22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

---same subject ---

It is my understanding (possibly wrong) that you were involved in Zeraeph's unblocking. I have been contacted by Mattisse regarding this matter, and I have left comments with User:Mikkalai here and User:Zareaph here. I have suggested to Mattisse that the article may be protected until Mikkalai (or you?) can get the parties to agree some working conditions. Your advice will hopefully prove useful here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not 'involved', please. SV was the unblocking admin. Why the (possibly wrong)? Are we children. Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And its just not Sandy, SlimVirgin; this user has also harrassed A Kiwi, TRCourage, Soulgany101, Mattisse, Penbat and Psychonaut. Were they consulted, or warned. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai has made it clear he is done with Z. [29] Mattisse 00:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's see what SV makes of it all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms

Please, am I supposed to be impressed this; I dont brush streets myself, and not that it matters or is anyway relevant. And I impressed that you are 48? My mother is 63. So what, actions speak louder than years. Please take regard of the substance, and the background. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you must think I am a fool. Mattisse 00:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify who you are talking to Mattisse. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am talking to User:LessHeard vanU. Mattisse 00:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

why should I care that you wish to involve yourself in discussions between two other parties?

Well, the thing is that Sandy is a friend, has been for a long while, and has helped me enourmosly during my 'career' here . She was harrassed. For months, on and off site. The account that harrassed her was unblocked. I asked why. I was given bullshit reasons, and told, authoratively I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms. What the fuck? Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

More info for you to consider - since you are apparently not aware - please read so you know what is happening -- you are just the latest in the forum shopping

• (Copied from user's archive -- I do not know how to get through to you)

-- Will you help me? --

On the article Psychopathy, the editor reverts me. I have attempted to discuss. He reported me to ANI. They say to discuss but he will not. Just says I am wrong, disruptive, etc. He removed sourced material. I did not know what was happening at first. I tried to report him to 3-RRR but I don't think I did it right. Besides, ANI said it would just make things worse. They said I was 3-RRR also, but as soon as I realized what was happening I stopped. (All of this was just this morning.)

Cap 3RR report, Zeraeph blocked

• first revert [30]
• second revert [31]
• third revert (plus four more) [32]

[33]

• fourth revert (plus four more)[34]
• fifth revert [35]

[36]

• sixth revert [37]
• seventh revert (plus one more) [38]
• eighth revert [39]
• ninth revert (plus one more) [40]
• tenth revert [41]
• eleventh revert (plus more) [42]

Please advise. I am getting so discouraged. Mattisse 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

oh, not Zeraeph again, groan. I need to go buy a Christmas tree, Mattisse; I plead with anyone else who watches my talk page to help you, as I have a long history with Zeraeph, and really do Not Want To Go There Again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at what happened there, Mattisse. Dispute resolution on Wiki is broken. Something needs to change; this is wrong. I hope someone else will step in to help, but this has been going on for a very long time, and the only advice I can give is to stay away from any article that Zeraeph edits, and try harder to avoid 3RR yourself (I haven't checked yet, but if you also violated 3RR, you should have sought help sooner. Two wrongs never make a right.) Anyway, Z went on a massive blanking spree last August, removing referenced text from another editor in an hours-long revert war, and she wasn't blocked then, so I don't hold out much hope now. The only thing I can say is that when Z was after me, at least conscientous and involved admins took the time to study the issue before opining, and really came to see how bad it was. Times have changed I guess, and admins these days are pressed and quick to pass judgment without full information. Good luck; it is discouraging, but you also must avoid 3RR yourself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Mattisse; I'm back. I know you have turned to me before in good faith and I apologize for letting you down. Wiki admins have been either unable or unwilling to deal with Zeraeph for well over a year, so in the interest of not wasting time or incurring unncessary stress, I encourage you to avoid any article she edits. She will always be in a dispute; let it be with someone else. She has a history of tying up other editors in forum shopping and illogical complaints, and you are better off finding another area to edit (to wit, this issue at psychopathy is now raised in 3 different places, after she had another issue at AN/I yesterday with another editor, all while "retired"). After near unanimous calls for a community ban over serious violations against me and others a year ago, another editor offered to mentor her, and I agreed with that course of action.[43] Her mentor kept things in check for many months, but now that he appears to be less active, she goes on these sprees, and then forum shops her way out of them; she is accomplished at convincing others, and it is hard to sort out her claims and sort through the diffs. Since the community ban discussion a year ago, she has tangled with at least four other editors (you, Psychonaut, Soulgany101 and A Kiwi besides the false claims against Keyne and me, which she never retracted). Nothing has been done in any case, and it ties up a lot of valuable editor time. She and another editor asked me to help settle an issue in August 2007 over citations; I looked at the referencing on Alexithymia, cleaned it up, got the article to a point where I believed the two of them had an agreement and the article was stable with only one cite tag, only to see Zeraeph come in a while later on a blanking spree and edit war, removing the text that was completely cited and checked by me, an outside party, with the amazing claim that the text wasn't cited. She was not blocked for that in spite of surpassing 3RR by a long distance, and when she was blocked for forum shopping and harassment sometime before that in an incident with Psychonaut (I think—there have been so many cases with her that I get them mixed up), she appealed directly to Jimbo and got the block removed. I'm partly to blame because I ultimately agreed to the mentorship over near unanimous calls from uninvolved parties for a community ban, and worse, none of those well reasoned, careful, thoughtful admins seem to be around on the admin boards any more. I've looked briefly at the edits to psychopathy, and from the few I checked, I saw that you were commenting out references that did not in fact appear to source the cited text (that is something I see constantly on the articles Z edits), and that Zeraeph engaged in a revert war to undo your work and to remove your tags from the article. I've never encountered productive editing from Zeraeph. It is your choice as to whether the time invested in those articles is worth it; I don't believe it is, and I am disappointed that Wiki forces the innocent to spend inordinate amounts of time jumping through ArbCom hoops to deal with disruptive editors. I saw the report at AN/I that was archived in only two hours, disallowing the opportunity for others to comment and passing premature and partial judgment on the situation without a careful analysis; the last thing we need is someone on ArbCom who doesn't take the time to seriously understand these complex issues and editors. If she's back on Wiki, at least someone should get her to take down her Retired tag; that tag has a story, too. The admin overboards are overworked, admins are not taking time to carefully sort out these situations, and good editors have to wade through the muck as a result of disruptive editors. I'm sorry to let you down, but I'm not willing to try to sort out a Zeraeph issue again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy please do not make personal attacks upon me at variance with the facts as they are known to you. If you have an issue with me, let us please take it to arbcom in accord with policy and have it resolved once and for all. Thank You --Zeraeph (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse SandyGeorgia's summary above of Zeraeph's pattern of disruptive activities. I have posted further details on Zeraeph's talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

--- Posted to [WP:AN/I]] again ---

[44] Knock yourself out causing me trouble Sandy, I am SO TIRED of your malice and scheming it is unreal. I made a genuine error in mistaking you for A Kiwi, and I made that error because in many ways you are exactly like her. --Zeraeph (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Sandy, I just now saw your message. Thank you for the support. I feel much better. Thank you. Mattisse 01:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Mattisse, but I hope you will heed my advice on two counts. First. I am strongly advising that you simply avoid any article that Zeraeph edits, period. It is not worth it, and you will only bring yourself problems. Second. There are (and you can look at the WP:FA and WP:GA stats to back this up) essentially no quality articles in the area you edit, psychology. The reason for that is that it is an area rife with POV editing and editors, and poorly sourced essay-like articles. It is a hard area in which to work, cleaning them up is almost impossible because they attract inexperienced and POV-driven editors, and you must strictly adhere to Wiki policies if you want to edit that topic area. Your block log is a concern. I haven't followed your edits closely, but I really recommend that you read and understand WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL, particularly if you edit in those areas, and seek advice and counsel from other editors whenever you are uncertain about something. If you find yourself tangling with Zeraeph again, it may be better to go find another article to work on. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have also just seen your sockpuppet list in Z's new AN/I complaint (that's three in two days); can you explain to me what that is about? I hope that is an old issue, and that you have sworn off of using mulitple accounts, and that you have an explanation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Found, a year old; I'm still interested in hearing an explanation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you actually look at what she is trying to do to the Psychopathy article which is a fully sourced medical article before providing any more encouragement based upon your personal animosity to me. --Zeraeph (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are right about no quality articles in Psychology and the reason for it. And this is the very reason I so rarely edit those articles; I image most psychologists feel the same. Just to kick Scientology out of Psychiatry and the AfD's for Psychiatric abuse was a major effort—two AfD's in a row to get rid of it. And an effort to revive it just cropped up a few weeks ago again! A sad commentary though, isn't it, on Wikipedia. This is why I mainly write legal articles now, as strangely enough (not like real life), the attorney's on wikipedia are not obstructionistic. They are not the interfering type or maybe they are too busy. Thank you so much for your straight arrow clarity. Mattisse 03:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, you didn't answer my query about the previous sockpuppetry. You aren't obliged to answer me, but I spend a lot of time trying to mentor and help new editors and defend underdogs against abuse, so I would like to be assured that my effort is well spent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I just did and it got lost in the edit conflict. I don't know if I have the energy to rewrite the whole thing right now. Mattisse

I'm patient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

found lost edit

The sock puppet issue explanation: Basically I cannot explain it. My attempts to account for it were ridiculed as "the granny defense". So there is no point now in even trying. (Although I will if you sincerely want me too.) Probably if you google the "granny defense" you will find it! Basically I was told that "by accident" someone stumbled over it—there was never a check user that anyone I know saw. The list of names I was given as my sock puppets, some had barely edited, most did not edit the same articles, some wrote good articles, it was hard to make sense of it. I am convinced that wikipedia is fundamentally corrupt. After over six months of harassment, RFC/Mattisse, endless Mediations in which the mediator turned out to be a sock puppet, the whole thing went to ArbCom in December 2007 -- the Starwood case. Here everything was blamed on me, but one arbitrator recused himself from the case and found that six sock puppets had been in unison harassing me since June of the year before and filing endless sock puppet accusations, AN/I's and check users against me! So I turned out to be irrelevant to the whole thing; Arbcom did not decide anything meaningful anyway. But now I have a bad reputation from all of that. So, that much more I appreciate your help. Thank you. Mattisse 03:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Mattisse, it is important to me to know that someone I help will not engage in sockpuppetry, personal attacks or edit wars. I found the case in 2006, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood. I'll look at it. What did you learn from that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I learned basically to trust no one and try to interact as little as possible with others here. For a while I would give it a try every now and then (to be normal, that is) but very fast something bad would happen and I have learned to stop. It it never worth it. I used to do a lot of copy editing for FA but no more. The sock puppet incident was of a month or two duration a 1 1/2 years ago (July, August 2006 or so) -- few edits -- I looked through them at one point trying to figure them out. I think it was a set up, although it is possible someone used my computer but not to do anything serious, as for that period my grandkids were living with me. The sock puppets, if that is what they were, did no damage. And I have done nothing remotely wrong since, except weather an exceptional barrage of nasty coordinated attacks from a sock puppet ring for six months. Every once in a while I go over board, like nominate for deletion all the articles I wrote for the last month or something stupid like that because I am fed up, shooting myself in the foot. That is my worst sin— shooting myself in the foot. Those are my sins. Mattisse 04:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the case, and I do not envy the arbitrators who had to wade through that mess; it's a good example of why ArbCom members must engage in careful and tedious examination of the evidence. However, you said "there was never a check user that anyone I know saw", but the checkuser is linked and was confirmed. I am inclined to not reject your "granny defense" out of hand because I have had the same occur in my house, and had a huge fright when I saw guests on my computer, editing Wikipedia, and may have to take precautions next time I have a house full of adolescents. Also, you said, "I am convinced that wikipedia is fundamentally corrupt". Well, maybe it is, but if we're not here to make it better, we shouldn't be allowed to stay here. Trusting no one is always wise advice on the internet, but if you are consistently a good faith and productive editor, you can make friends with some exceptionally good people on Wikipedia. I still feel that the AN/I thread came to hasty and premature conclusions and was closed precipitously without careful investigation and consideration of the pot-kettle-black, forum shopping and ongoing long-standing issues, leaving you labeled because of past history. I hope to see you in the future as an editor in good standing with no personal attacks, no revert wars, and no tangles with Zeraeph. I will not be willing to get involved in a Zeraeph-Mattisse affair, so I hope it doesn't happen. I will give you the benefit of doubt and assumption of good faith, Mattisse, unless you show me otherwise: please don't. Because Zeraeph is now blocked, you can start showing an extra measure of good faith and good intentions by *not* editing those articles in her absence. There are plenty of articles to edit in other areas, and you can always regain a good name by helping with the daily tasks that always need doing, stub sorting, disambiguation, things like that. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you. Whether I am a editor in good standing or not is becoming less important by the day. In fact, I would say it is not important any longer. This is despite the fact that in my real life, good standing is the essence of the profession. I have done everything I am humanly incapable of to be a good wikipedia person, done endless scut work editing for other people's glorious, been very giving in my work. All this to be constantly abused. I just don't care anymore. I am certainty not going to do stub sorting and such because it was trying to be helpful in those sorts of tasks that got me in trouble to begin with. You open yourself up for abuse by wikifying and such, all those so-called helpful tasks that give others a chance to leap ugliness on you. That is how the sock puppet ring started after me -- because I was following the directions for wikifying articles. I fine it strange that Zeraeph is blocked as I have been abused by editors much more tenacious and ugly with no one willing to intervene, and so this is a pittance and actually laughable. I am sorry you did not come along a year and one half ago. But now I can never think of wikipedia as a good place, but only one where I watch my back and move on if someone like Zeraeph edits. What sort of place is that? In my own profession, as you have stated, it is impossible to edit. How horrible can it get. Not much worse. I am certainly not willing to "try to redeem myself" if 36,000+ of almost uniformly good editing and article production is not enough -- especially since I have been abused harshly for wikifying, for stub sorting, for categorizing, for merely trying to help in any way I could. So no, redemption is a road to hell. I see very little good would happen here if I followed your counsel: to scrub the floor to be "redeemed". It did not work before, so why should it work now? If I have not earned more than that by what I have done, then no thanks. I will just write for myself here. I don't feel like I owe anything to wikipedia. Mattisse 05:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and agree it's frustrating. I've been a target for most of my time on Wikipedia, it has been most unpleasant, and I feel largely unprotected. That's why I try to help when I see others in trouble. But the good people make it worthwhile; you don't have to follow my advice, but it was geared towards helping you build a network of the good people, so you can withstand the days of dealing with all that other stuff, like today, when I had so many more important things to do than to see Zeraeph's name pop up on my user page again <sigh>. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, I have just investigated your contributions with Kate's tool, and examined your DYKs and barnstars, many from editors I know. I was completely out of line to suggest that you need to change your editing focus, and I apologize. You are correct; there is no reason for you to change your contributions because, like me, you had the misfortune to cross paths with Zeraeph. I still recommend you try to avoid editing the same articles she edits, but I sincerely apologize for suggesting you need to do any more than that or for in any way making you feel that your contributions haven't been valuable and shouldn't continue status quo. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I am very grateful to you because you have been, besides the one recused arbitrator who ferreted out the sock puppets after me, the only admin who has ever helped me. As I said, Zeraeph's blocking is laughable in the face of, for example, being stalked to 39 articles in one day and having my editing reversed -- result of complaint: nothing. Or being told to stick a razor up my ass and twist it by the same editor who stalked me. (And I am sure he had an admin sock puppet account or he could never have gotten away with what he did -- the admins always protected him.) This was a typical day for six months. Falliff (or whatever his name is) will probably get elected to arbcom (already filled with back scratchers -- one arbitrator voted to keep an article by the person being accused of COI in an AfD while the arbitration was active) And, as you may have noticed, the Starwood arbitration was not even about me, yet my name is the one that was passed around and passed around through the mud. Probably 20 AN/I's were filed against me by the sock puppets before I even knew AN/I existed. I changed my name once to make it less feminine because I have experienced that females, by and large, are treated worse. I refuse to do it again. It would not do any good anyway, as Wikipedia only protects its own (the admins who get to deleted their bad publicity) -- although the sock puppet incident was over 1 1/2 years ago and was of short duration, it is dragged up at the slightest provocation. For example there was an RFC/Mattisse2 a month or so ago because of one edit another editor did not like and it was the focus of the RFC. I have been advised by an admin (MONGO) that my reputation is so bad that I should start over, drop this account, and start from zero. Pretend I have no past history -- as if that would work.

Quick note: Mattisse, I am not an admin, and have never wanted to be one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the network of friends and good people, all the ones I bonded with and worked hard with on articles are no longer active, save one whose view is to use wikipedia to play around for yourself and be sure not to respond to anything, do not vote for anything, do not enter discussions with anyone. In fact, he and I only talk on IRC now, as he will not post anything but trivial comments on Wikipedia -- and he is a highly respected Wikipedia member but refuses to become an admin. I still have not gotten over the losses of all the good people I knew. All have left Wikipedia. I am stubborn so I hang in -- but only to entertain myself, per my friend's advice mentioned above. This current episode, even though it brought out the goodness of you -- clarified there is no point to any other attitude. I would never get involved personally in an Arbitration -- I never posted anything in the Starwood none, but if Fassiff gets elected, then all hope is gone. And it is clear he will. Thank you for taking the time to respond. It is most appreciated. Mattisse 12:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. Could you please have a look at the answer and my opinion i have just provided here? Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse and FayssalF, I promise to catch up later in the day, but this unexpected appearance on my talk page yesterday of yet another Zeraeph event overtook my editing time just as I was beginning holiday preparations; I must catch up and get some other things done before devoting time to the never-ending Zeraeph saga. I promise to review and respond before the end of the day, but I must set a priority of not letting Z disrupt my routine Wiki editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on the link above; my concern is amplified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Regards, Mattisse 01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)