User talk:Geometry guy

Welcome to my (rather minimalist) user and user talk page: please leave comments, questions, complaints, or just general chat below. I can't promise to reply, but if I do I will reply here: if I take a while I will drop a note on your talk page. Please provide direct links to issues you raise. I like to help out and have experience with templates, but my wikitime is limited. I have access to admin tools, but I don't use them to deal with vandalism or editor conduct (although I am willing to help with both of these issues sans tools).

"Official" abbreviations of my username include G'guy, G-guy, Gguy and G guy. I promise I will only be mildly irritated by approximations relating to horses.

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Involved administrators

I hope you do not mind me approaching you on your talk page, but I do not wish to bloat or derail the clarification request further. If Moni3 had said "oops, my bad" in any form, I would not have made any further note of it. You mention hindsight and the heat of the moment, but a significant part of the problem is that there was no hindsight. On the contrary, she insists that she did nothing wrong except not "pitch[ing] a holy fit". I'm sorry but if that's a response about an involved admin action on a page where the need for protection is significantly less pressing that the usual targets (articles, disruptive editors' talk pages), there's a huge problem on multiple levels in my eyes. I'm glad to discuss this further, if you wish. I've your page watchlisted, so feel free to respond here. I hope this helps clarify why I made further note of the incident and the root of my concerns. Vassyana (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, and a warm welcome to my talk page. I understand your view, and did not intend to be critical in my post. The intention behind my comment was grounded in my view of Arbitration as an extension of mediation and requests for comments: if the parties can be brought together that is so much the better for everyone. While I agree that the use of tools by involved administrators can be a matter for serious concern, I don't think it is one of the main issues in this case. Of course, I would welcome any conciliatory remarks from Moni3, as this would also help bring parties together, but I believe such remarks are more meaningful when they are volunteered rather than required. Geometry guy 20:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the welcome. :) I appreciate your point and did not regard your message as overly critical by any means. Part of my motivation is that ArbCom is one of the few venues for addressing adminisrative problems and that it would seem extremely neglectful to let such a blatant example slide by without comment. I'm certainly not looking to move towards a desysop or make a capital case out of it, but at the very least noting the matter seems warranted. I doubt even a formal reminder will come into play, as I'd hope that a strong expression of concern should be sufficient, given the isolated nature of the action. As for the rest, I'd be entirely pleased to be shown some indication that this situation can be worked through only with a bit of guidance from ArbCom. The indications I have seen appear to indicate the contrary, much to my chagrin. While there is an improving focus, it seems insufficient to counterweight the negatives (and give no indication that those will be actually mitigated). Vassyana (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you believe, as I do, that this ArbRequest would not have happened were it not for the dysfunctional nature of the monitoring page, then you might consider that making this page more functional would be the most straightforward outcome. Geometry guy 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I also have Geometry guy's page watchlisted and would be happy to remark here or on my talk page. I am not unreasonably stubborn, punitive, or vindictive in any way and I firmly believe that any stability for the process was quickly spiraling out of control. Not my control or SandyGeorgia's, but any semblance of transparency and purpose was fleeing in haste. I do not feel that I made a mistake or an error in judgment. I feel as if ArbCom made an egregious error in giving no structure to a plan and then approving one that had no expectations or consequences, and I was one of a minority of editors who have been pressing for some structure that seemed so basic and fundamental as to be obvious. I don't understand why something was not implemented months ago. But I said all this in my request for clarification, and your focus on my protecting the page for six hours so rapid changes would stop, the integrity of the page would remain, and perhaps a splinter of sense might be made of its content is baffling. Quite so. I feel as if we're speaking two different languages. I feel as if I have been forced to make myself obnoxious and escalate matters just to force editors involved to have some integrity, and now I'm being chastised for it. Maybe ArbCom is used to simpletons who watch out for their own self concepts or some nebulous idea of winning. That's not who I am. I don't know what to expect from this process. I've never requested clarification before. But your response, Vassyana, has me re-evaluating what little faith or optimism that Arbitrators can see sense and intent, and use failure to improve. I simply don't know what to do anymore. --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wherever you look on Wikipedia, there will be different perceptions of the same events both by those involved and those not: textual communication is very unreliable at communicating intention. With further editors at the ArbRequest commenting that this is a side issue, I suggest a line be drawn before it becomes divisive. Geometry guy 21:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Moni3, I do not disregard your valid concerns and points, even understanding and sympathizing with your frustration. My prime issue here is the action as an involved admin. Not using the tools in disputes where you are involved is one of the basic rules of adminship. This was not a BLP or similar issue that required such quick and direct action by an involved party. Can you understand why, in that context, this is a substantial concern for me? Vassyana (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana, if it could help you move on to what I feel the real problem is, then I will acknowledge that it appears I am an involved admin taking action in order to gain leverage somehow. This is not the reality of the situation (at least not my reality), and your continued focus on this issue detracts from the very real and very difficult problems that are not being addressed. Can you understand or at least acknowledge that I feel that I was forced, through lack of clarity created by ArbCom, to stop the degradation of what tiny modicum of progress that was being made? I hope at least you are able to see my perspective, to understand that it is possible that an editor who was not a mentor, was trying desperately to get others to see the need for structure. I do not feel I had anything to gain personally by protecting the page for 6 hours. There was no leverage to be had on my part; at least I cannot see it. If others presume I had an ulterior motive, I do not know what it would be. In my opinion, nothing is more important that setting in place a logical system where editors can register comments and complaints, where they are heard, where content is the highest priority instead of my well-being or Mattisse's, and collaboration is as seamless as possible. I know it won't happen that way overnight, but nothing will be accomplished by wishing it to be so without defined goals, roles, expectations, and consequences. The system so far has proven to be a waste of everyone's time. Please, Vassyana, focus on how to improve this situation. Please! I do not know how to express how exhausted and disheartened my experiences in this entire process dating back to the original ArbCom have made me. Now I am begging you to help me. --Moni3 (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2) Apologies, Geometry Guy, for butting in on your talk page. I would just like to point out that I had originally intended to provide an analysis of where I thought the discussions on the mentorship pages had spiralled out of control, but I couldn't find the diffs. Mattisse had moved conversations around so many times and lumped them all into one archive area; I couldn't figure out where many of the posts had been originally made and could not be sure who was actually responding to whom (even time stamps didn't help much because some of the conversations took place simultaneously on multiple pages). For this reason, I can fully understand why Moni3 was concerned that posts were being moved yet again, to yet another page, and without discussion. I'd be happy to add this to my statement at the request for clarification page, but please don't make me find diffs. Karanacs (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No apology necessary, Karanacs, and a warm welcome both to you and Moni3. The monitoring page has spiralled out of control on multiple occasions, and I understand and share Moni3's frustration, so you certainly do not need to provide diffs on my account! As I noted above, I think it would be better to draw a line: arbitrators may wish to reaffirm a point of principle, but its application here is not helpful. Geometry guy 21:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The information about who moved what where has been contested in the archived posts below. Geometry guy 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving from "I believe it was Geometry guy..." to "the whole situation is alarmingly detracting from why we're here and the work we all need to be doing."

I believe it was Geometry guy who archived the monitoring pages. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Actually, it was SilkTork that archived the pages, going by the history. I moved two threads to the monitoring page from my talk page. but I did no removing of anything until the incident in which I attempted to gain control of my userspace, thus provoking the page lock down. I ask for some assuming of good faith regarding my motivations and behavior, please. —mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, but discussion of issues like this doesn't really take matters forwards. Geometry guy 21:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Karanacs said: Mattisse had moved conversations around so many times and lumped them all into one archive area; I couldn't figure out where many of the posts had been originally made and could not be sure who was actually responding to whom (even time stamps didn't help much because some of the conversations took place simultaneously on multiple pages). In fact, I did not do this. I will be happy if the blaming me on you page stops. —mattisse (Talk) 21:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, you did. I have continually implored your mentors to help you understand how to read diffs and article edit histories, as I think this is one of the roots of the problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Please provide diffs that I had moved conversations around so many times and lumped them all into one archive area. The fact is that I did not set up the archives and I did not achieve anything. —mattisse (Talk) 22:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC) This isn't an evidence page, and as I've already stated, I have no intentions of wasting any more of time or good faith efforts to help you by going back again through your extensive edits to locate them. If you want to present counterevidence, by all means, do so. Honestly, Mattisse, since you feel free to make statements about other editors on your talk without presenting diffs, I don't feel obliged to accord you this courtesy any longer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Karanacs and SandyGeorgia: Please provide diffs if you are going to accuse and blame. I have looked through my diffs and I did not do as you allege. Please stop. —mattisse (Talk) 22:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC) So, since everyone else is butting in, I will as well, with apologies to G guy. I am finding this whole matter so exasperating and exhausting, that I just no longer have the energy to go through Mattisse's thousands of contribs to locate the diffs to back evidentiary statements. This whole affair (and by that, I mean what I see as ArbCom's initial mishandling of the mentorship portion of the decision) has really drained my enthusiasm for Wiki. I've watched as I, other productive editors, and content review processes are maligned across multiple pages, while little was done untl recently. I had planned to make a coherent response today, but I just no longer have the energy to continue involvement in this debacle. So, with a recognized amount of incoherence and a lack of diffs, I'll mention some things in no particular order. Until very recently, there was no venue for presenting issues and, amazingly, several of the mentors did not even have the Monitoring page or Matisse's page watchlisted. To this day, several of them are relatively uninvolved and/or unaware of the history or the issues, and there have been some clear concerns about partisanship and "attacking the messengers". Somewhere on the current Monitoring talk page, one of the mentors mentioned days into this recent debacle that he had just figured out where the moved posts went. This is the sort of chaos I had to deal with in several FACs where Mattisse participated, and knowing that she has a tendency for making history difficult to sort, I understood the need to quickly protect the page in the absence of any of the mentors and the ongoing chaos. Only the day before, Mattisse had moved a whole slew of commentary from her talk page to the Monitoring user page, doesn't seem to understand the difference between a page in user space and user talk space, and these kinds of moves create a burden for everyone trying to sort the issues. Moni's protection seemed like an unharmful example of the appropriate use of IAR; precisely because it wasn't an article, no harm was done, and Moni immediately brought it to ArbCom. I am unclear what ArbCom's "continuing jurisdiction" in this case actually means, and it seems to me that they didn't exercise it. Perhaps I misunderstand? But (I think) at least twice, I left talk notices on NYB's talk page linking to discussions of concern. Yet the situation continued to spiral. In this vein, we just need more clarification, and I understood the need to protect the page while things were quickly spiraling again. An additional complication in this matter is that discussions are split across multiple pages, and several mentors have furthered this, taking issues to user talk pages. It would certainly help busy editors (and most of us are), if everything would just stay on the gosh darn mentoring page! If others are not allowed to discuss on the Monitoring page, we'll get partial analysis of situations and diffs as presented by the examples I left on the Request for Clarification page; the complainants need to be able to discuss and clarify. If input on that page is restricted, we need to be able to take issues elsewhere instead. If the plan is to continue, and if the Monitoring page is to be the only place for complaints, then the Mentorship committee should expand to include more neutral parties; for example, notice how effective Karanacs has been in raising issues without raising hackles. In support of some of what Durova observed, I am very troubled by how long it took for Mattisse to strike a comment from AN/I, that was initially called to her attention by Karanacs, with a followup from Philcha, on her talk page. I stuck with it this time, although previous attempts at discussion with Mattisse have all failed, because there were enough observers involved to hopefully assure the discussion would stay on track, and because her mentor had specifically recommended a course of action that she delayed (substantially) in following. But from observing that interaction on her talk page, and that she twice went to AN/I and yet did not follow her mentor's advice until a long while afterwards and with a lot of prodding from me, makes me wonder what's going on there. It appears disingenuous, as pointed out by Durova. At a minimum, I never understood why ArbCom didn't rule that Mattisse should no longer review FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts. I agree that we don't want to lose her sometimes valuable input, and to that aim, G guy and I once discussed the idea of allowing her to comment on talk pages only, so the review pages wouldn't be derailed, as they do when she is emotionally involved. (I've seen numerous references to her copyediting skills, yet she was so upset during the MDD FAC that she introduced copyediting, spelling and grammar errors almost every time she edited the artice; she shouldn't stay involved when she's upset.) That's all I can think of for now; the whole situation is alarmingly detracting from why we're here and the work we all need to be doing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to all concerned for archiving this, but we are going round in circles here and revisiting old ground, and there are limits to my tolerance of this on my user talk page. I have preserved the text so that editors who wish to can copy it and continue their disagreements elsewhere, but as SandyGeorgia noted at the end of her long post, don't we have better things to do? Thanks for your understanding. Geometry guy 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: StatisticianBot

I replied to your message on my talk page, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks! —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 16:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up that StatisticianBot has been repaired and is ready to go again. See the GAN talk page for more info. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 20:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Many many thanks for this. May I add a personal request? I have found the GAN/R information very helpful in understanding whether GA is working, being overwhelmed by requests etc. etc. As I understand, the bot parses the Wikitext at GAN at 09:00UTC each day. Would you be willing, using the edit history of GAN, to make a one time pass over the missing days between May and October this year, and provide summary statistics for this period? Geometry guy 20:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I can probably create a one-time task to take a look through the history for the months that were missed. I'd need to change around how the bot works a bit, but I can probably manage that. I guess it's really the backlog section that you'd be interested in, right? The other sections wouldn't be very useful anymore but backlog gives a good summary of the state of GAN at any particular time. I probably won't have time over the weekend but I'll see what I can do on Monday.

Also, in the future, if something goes wrong with the bot and I don't seem to be around, please email me at daniel.vandersluis@gmail.com so that I can know about it and get on fixing it sooner. I must admit that because of all that's been going on this year for me, I completely forgot that the bot wasn't operational until I happened to see your message a couple days ago. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 20:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'm interested in the raw numbers for the missing months: number of articles nominated, under review, etc.: if you can find a way to publish them onwiki, that would be ideal. Geometry guy 21:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

invitation

Can you please come here [1] and discuss. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The article on the Catholic Church is at long last receiving considerable attention from editors who value scholarship and the goals of the encyclopedia as paramount, including some with expert knowledge of reliable sources. I will contribute (and I hope others who are interested in improving the encyclopedia will do the same) when I believe my contributions will make a difference, not when they will add to disruptive chatter. The sentence in dispute was discussed extensively prior to the vote which you started, yet still you ask for explanations of objections.

Nancy, with due respect for all your hard work, there is no ownership of pages on Wikipedia. If you truly want this article to really fly, and be the best encyclopedic article anywhere on web on the church that you love, you need to step back and stop orchestrating its development.

In more general terms, fixing problems in the lead is not worth considerable editor resource when problems in the body of the article remain. Similarly, fixing problems with a summary style section is not worth considerable editor resource when the spinout article is deeply flawed.

In this respect I would note that History of the Catholic Church is in a dire state: it is closer to an assertion of belief than a history. Anyone who truly wishes to engage with the debate on the Catholic Church article from the Church perspective could show good faith by fixing the egregious problems with the History article. Geometry guy 22:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

PS. Your post sounds like a polite request from a schoolteacher to a student, which I hope was unintentional.

Other editors have now also raised concerns about ongoing ownership issues at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NancyHeise. Geometry guy 21:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Size

Oops, apropos of something, the above thread is related :) I chuckled at your reference to the size of the Request for clarification page; the other case was just archived, so it's possible to see now that the Mattisse case is 248KB. The Catholic Church FACs regularly surpassed 400KB, even with me aggressively moving comments to talk, even after restarts, and I had to read through it all by my little lonesome-- no clerks, no committee :) Anyway, I'm not sure if your comments about old history on the Requests page apply to me: if they don't, please ignore me, but if they do, how am I supposed to answer Philcha's partial analysis, Mattisse's statements about the Unreviewed list, and provide context for the new Joyce incident without covering the history that led to the current incident? Or am I just supposed to let inaccurate things stand on the page, and then complain if the arbs don't get it? At least Philcha didn't seem to see the relevance of the Joyce incident, so it seemed I had to lay it all out. What else do you suggest? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(The article itself is now > 222KB!) Regarding the ArbRequest, my comments apply to all, from Philcha to Giano, but it is a vicious circle: everyone wants to answer everyone else's points. Most analyses are partial in both senses of the word, and there is now too much material for anyone to digest. I can't answer for the arbs, only for what I find useful. Although I know a lot of the back history, what I am interested in at the moment is how Mattisse has handled herself since June. For this it is not actually so important what happened or who was "right" in a prior conflict: what matters is how Mattisse handled the issue recently, whether she helped to raise, escalate or deescalate the conflict, whether mentor advice helped, and how it could be made more effective. Geometry guy 22:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, she's doing much better now! (No comments on the CC article, but I did notice that Dr pda just put up new article stats on FAs.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was User:The ed17 who updated User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, however they used wiki text size rather than readable prose. I have just regenerated the list myself using the readable prose size of the articles. Dr pda (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I have been accused of having a sockpuppet. See User talk:Mutual monarch. What do I do now? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Confess if this is an alternative account of yours (which seems unlikely!) - otherwise do nothing. Anyway, SilkTork is now looking into it. Geometry guy 21:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It can't possibly be one of Mattisse's, as it's actually one of mine ... oh bugger, I'll get me coat. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank goodness for SilkTork. He posted to that editor in a really nice way. I appreciate SilkTork more and more. And to think that he used to very much dislike me! Very much. And I was not appreciative of him during those times either! He is a truly good "person". Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  He is one of Wikipedia's true grown-ups. Geometry guy 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! And to think he was a former "enemy" of mine. I am very thankful. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow up

Thanks muchly for the effort; it is noted and much appreciated. I'll leave it to you (and others involved) to decide if a private e-mail loop ... something I normally avoid and abhor ... might be beneficial at some point in the future, but I would engage with great trepidation, considering the results of past efforts. I've been down that road before and found only unbudging perceptions and evasiveness. But I wouldn't want to engage on-Wiki in a discussion involving "perceptions", since those are basically speculative and not diffable. And <smile> please don't put me in the position of passing judgment on FAs again ... my "job" is to respect consenus and the processes for forming it, whether or not I agree; to that end, when an FA I'm watching turns problematic, I usually unwatch and wait for it to appear at FAR.  :) That article passed at 2006 standards (when I was still a relatively new editor), and we still have more than 70 2005 FAs that haven't been reviewed; those concern me more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I do what I can to help. I'm also not interested in a private email loop: I share you propensity to avoid such things as much as possible. Concerning the rest of your comments here and immediately prior to this followup, I agree with you that large-scale tagging can be counterproductive and discouraging. However, the benefit of tags instead of the "so fix it" approach is that article experts generally have better knowledge of the sources and so can implement better fixes.

Now, Sandy, I cannot accept your suggestion that I put you into a position of passing judgement on FAs, nor that the to-and-fro we had on the reporting page (aka "dispute not worth having") has anything to do with your position as FAC delegate. Your "easy sofixit" removed material which you were later able to source, but also did not source the most contentious part of the sentence. This is not the point: anyone can edit Wikipedia, and mistakes are allowed, even encouraged. Please don't think I am criticizing you over this.

The point is that you had already passed a judgement on this sentence when you held up your edit as an example of an easy-sofixit (For example, this could have been fixed almost as fast as it was tagged...), when it was not such a good example. I only asked you to revisit a view you had already expressed. In your position I would have said something like "Oops, my bad", and that discussion would have been over, returning us to the main issue as to the appropriateness (or otherwise) of Mattisse's responses.

You are widely respected for the work you do at FAC, and I am one of the many who respects (and understands) just how hard the job is. I would encourage you to edit with confidence towards improving the encyclopedia, and not to be afraid of making mistakes. But I also encourage re-evaluation. I repeatedly advise Mattisse not to respond in a rush to other editors' comments when disagreements arise: this is advice I take seriously myself, lest I dig myself into a hole by committing to a position without thinking carefully about it. I freely offer this advice to all as a way of dealing with the fact that we all make mistakes and we are communicating over a very imperfect medium. Geometry guy 20:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, G guy. I'm going to wait until tomorrow or Tuesday to respond, hoping I get my computer back in functioning condition, since I'm on a dinosaur, and reading and editing is a challenge. Now that the other fires I was fighting have subsided, and if I get my computer back, my posts should be more coherent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Please take your time: the above fire (if it ever was one) is now out as far as I am concerned. Geometry guy 21:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Working from memory-- I'm not going to go back through diffs, because this dinosaur computer makes it too difficult to go back and locate or review them. When I watchlist an FA, my goal is to maintain it to the standard that passed-- not to rewrite it or question the consensus at the time it passed. You are right to the extent that you've brought new information to the incident: information which had nothing to do with the incident when it occurred (but is relevant to the FA status of the article and the quality of its sourcing). Every time a Mattise behavioral issue is not dealt with, and deflected to a content dispute based on hindsight and new information, the situation becomes more intractible (because Mattisse uses that to excuse the behaviors); this has happened more than once (for instance, on several GA reviews). We should be dealing with the behavioral issues here, not armchair quarterbacking. Mattisse reverted because she thought the site was inaccessible; she stated that clearly on her talk page when attempts were made to understand the issue. I incorrectly characterized the incident as an "easy so fixit", when your new information shows it wasn't so easy. That is 20-20 hindsight, but unrelated to what was happening at the time. To the extent that you've brought new information to the table, you are correct, and my characterization of it as an "easy so fixit" was wrong.

The entire incident could have been avoided, and the sourcing issues resolved more quickly, by addressing the behavioral issues and good editing policy. First, when you've been reverted once, discuss, don't revert a second time. Mattisse didn't do that on article talk; others had to go to her talk to try to understand why she couldn't access the site. Your subsequent analysis of the problems with the sourcing had nothing to do with what was happening at the time, at least according to what Mattisse stated on her talk. Second, the situation became further problematic when she accused me of stalking.

These behaviors are the issue that should be dealt with, and are symptomatic of why so many editors are disturbed by the "advocacy" positions taken by the mentors, who don't seem to see the behavioral issues. A very good example is the Johnson incident I put on the Report talk page; mentors focused on the Johnson language, while ignoring the targeting of editors with whom Mattisse has had disputes and a possibly pointy oppose. By "advocating" and finding reasons to excuse her behaviors, the mentors don't help her recognize and change the areas that lead her to problems.

Another example of how her perceptions drive her editing and lead to her failure to AGF is the Major Depressive Disorder FAC. Mattisse's "perception" of a "FAC cabal" seems to have led to her upset on that FAC, and the subsequent disruption (which extended to her article editing, where she seemed so upset that she introduced copyediting errors into the article, and made the FAC unintelligible). In spite of me being one of the primary proponents of WP:MEDRS, and an editor who edits in that area, Mattisse seems to have honestly believed that I would have passed an article that was riddled with primary sources used incorrectly, because the FAC had a lot of support. Her misperceptions about FAC, a "FAC cabal", and me led to her upset in that situation, in my opinion. Had she not raised the primary sourcing concerns on that article, I would have had to recuse and do so myself, and that is not a good situation for the FAC delegate to be in. It was not necessary for her to disrupt that FAC to make a point which I, as well as any editor on Wiki, support. That is why I have worked with you to hopefully forestall another ArbCom and find a way to implement a plan that will address the behaviors; in spite of my efforts, Mattisse continues to make characterizations about a ban at FAC, although I've not seen any of us calling for that. If the behaviors don't change, that will be necessary, though, and if there's another ArbCom, I'll take the time to prepare my evidence carefully and convincingly-- something I have yet to do on any of the three pages so far (the RFC, the Arb, and the Request for clarification) because of other pressing issues that were taking my time. I wish you all would get a workable Plan and Monitoring page in place that will address the behavioral issues, so we could all put this behind us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)