User talk:Walton One/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

RfA oppose votes

Regarding your comment here: I noticed that here, BenAveling said that neither is the case. I still agree with you, though, that any oppose vote should be based on good reasons, providing diffs for any allegations of disqualifying behaviour. On the other hand, take a look at the different RfA votes 4kinnel made so far: [1], [2], [3]. Regards, —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Caligvla is always here

Hi Walton, I haven't gone for good, just too busy with work and travel... to be dealing with edit wars. When I have time I edit, but I around and keeping an eye on things... How have you been?

Caligvla.

:D

Hola, Walton! The Mfd is finally over! Thanks so much for all of your support! And, here is something for you...

(Barnstar from DTD moved to userpage) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

Thank you for the wonderful editor review! I will make sure to follow your suggestions. I do hope to, one day, become an administrator. I'm not impatient to become one, however. As for the low edit summaries, I'm just about to add a script that reminds me to add an edit summary if I try to save a page without one. Thanks again! --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 19:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to 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.

Ed rev

Hi Walton, sorry about that, I've been slightly inactive lately. I will check it out right now. Thanks for the reminder! – Riana ^ऋ 05:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA query

Hey Walton, thanks for your message. I will have a look through some of your edits and let you know what I think. I won't say if I will support or oppose a possible future RfA, though, and I'd encourage you to be careful how you phrase that when asking people's opinions. It doesn't bother me personally and wouldn't affect my !vote either way, but, like you, I'm sure, I've seen some strange reasons to oppose candidates and the most benign comment misconstrued into canvassing or something untoward. As I said, it doesn't bother me at all, but personally, I'd be careful asking people directly if they will support you because someone might misinterpret it as canvassing. Anyway, I'll have look and get back to you. Thanks for asking for my opinion. Cheers, Sarah 10:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

AMA

I did not mention this Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mattisse (which is still "under investigation") especially the following request:

"I am curious about all the information that was gathered about me by my Advocates, especially by SilkTork. I would like to receive some sort of feedback, since I have received none, except the comments made earlier today by the AMA coordinator who indicated that all my Advocates disliked me and felt all my problems were my own fault. (I am paraphrasing here, as I cannot remember the exact words, just the gist.)" (end of quote)

I cannot get feedback nor can I get the case closed. Postings and emails to the coordinator have been ignored, or he has called me a pest. I have appealed to another AMA person who says he will close it in a few days if the coordinator does not. Meanwhile, the coordinator is posting on that AMA editor's page, right above my question about how to get the darn thing closed.

So maybe I do feel increasing animosity toward AMA, though I recognise individuals like you, User:Addhoc and Neigel von Teighen are very good, kind people. Addhoc did help me for a few days, but apparently had browser/technical problems and could not communicate with me so nothing was ever explained to me. This experience alone would not have let me to have an opinion one way or another about AMA.

It is the defending of the sock puppets that is so disruptive and dangerous to Wikipedia. I noticed User:Mongo posted a diff about how an AMA advocate aided a sockpuppet against him.

In my case the advocate was just plain irresponsible. He got the sock puppet out of the Arbitration, and in the Arbitration asked another sock puppet to email him if he wanted to know the sad story about me. Once the sock puppet was out of arbitration, he proceed to cause trouble Link. He filed another AMA request on behalf of his blocked sock pupped to get him unblocked. This request was accepted by AMA. Opening request for another user That case also is now "under investigation" as that sock puppet is blocked indefinitely. Shortly after the opening of the second AMA case the two are accused of being sock puppets. The first sock puppet defended by an AMA Advocate "leaves" Wikipedia before he is blocked/banned because of Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson on Feb.5. A week ago the Arbitration was finally closed and the sock puppet's AMA Advocate posts a note of congratulations on the sock puppet's talk page.[4], apparently not having paid any attention to the subsequent behavior of his advocee, nor that the advocee's talk page was the subject of a heated AFD because of the many accusations, nasty remarks etc he made.

In the Arbitration the major sock puppet User:Hanuman Das "retired" at the beginning and the AMA Advocate asked how frequently did this happen. He was told very frequently, as persons who feared the Arbitration decision might result in a ban would retire or "leave" first and wait for the outcome. The AMA Advocate failed to notice that his advocee did the exact same thing when he saw the direction his sock puppet case was going.

How can this sort of advocacy be defended? Sincerely, Mattisse 15:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

AMA suggestions

I did send a list of suggestions to User talk:Wooyi and if you like, I will send it to you. I agree with the direction of you thinking. I am not against the whole idea if it is possible to reform it.

What bothers me is that the AMA Advocate involved in the Starwood case is an experienced Advocate. Somewhere on that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates he offers a diff from an Arbitration case from February 2005 where the Aribrators compliment him on his help.

If AMA is merely ineffective I would not be so concerned, although I also was shocked at the lack of standards, monitoring etc. I have had my own saga with AMA: Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mattisse. But the sock puppet issue is a very serious one. That an experienced Advocate goes into Arbitration and gets an obvious sock puppet off the hook is shocking.

And even more troubling, I just answered a post he left on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates regarding my insistent focus on his behavior in Starwood Arbitration (which I do feel bad about because he is a very kind, helpful person). However, his post shows that even now he does not understand the Starwood Arbitration case. He misses the whole point of what happened in that Arbitration -- that the case was about the sock puppets, as the Arbitrators clearly recognised, and when the sock puppet ring was shut down there not much left to arbitrate.

The Arbitrator who recused himself in the beginning of the Starwood Arbitration so he could go after the sock puppets had seen instantly that the sock puppets were the whole problem. He was brilliant and very focused in how he approached that task. I don't think Advocates have nearly enough sophistication or experience to get involved in the layers of intricacy going on in Arbitration and easily mistake the dance for reality. An Advocate cannot go into Arbitration with the attitude of AGF. There is a difference between acting "as if" you are AGF and actually ignoring signs and indicators in the name of AGF. That is very naive.

I agree with people who see AMA as a sock puppet enabling service. Can you figure out a way to prevent this?

If you can I would support your suggestions. Sincerely, --Mattisse 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: AMA suggestions

• My first reaction is that 500 edits is really puny, but maybe I don't know what an average Wikipedia edit count is. I would say minimum 5000 but maybe I am being totally unrealistic. Also, I know with admins it really matters how many edits they have done in the mainspace. A person who has written articles and had to deal with the feelings of "ownership" and compromise over a work product etc. has had much more valuable experience than someone who has racked up edits arguing on various talk/discussion/Mfx pages.

• Also, I think more of an "internship" than just one case working with an experienced editor would be better. I have never been an Advocate but I am assuming it takes some degree of skill and that it would take time to encounter a good sample of the variations of editors and problems.

• I really like the idea of two advocates working together during an Arbitration. I know in my line of work in the real world, after years of practicums and an internship and then some years of supervision, one still asks another experienced practitioner for consultation on occasion, especially if there is a problem in distancing oneself from the client.

• I like the idea of no secrecy but I bet there will be resistance to that. I get the idea, just from the comments over this, that there is a certain renegade mentality that is not pleasant. In fact it is getting very unpleasant.

I just noticed that there is an assumption that the Starwood Arbitration was unsuccessful, when it was highly successful. Perhaps I will bow out now. I don't think many advocates really read comments and that this is a waste of time. They appear vested in their own point of view rather than in learning and in doing a professional job. It would be better for my frame of mind if I just stay away from AMA.

Sorry, but this is becoming a huge downer. I don't want to read any more of their comments. I'm needing to fill my head with something more pleasant. Sincerely, --Mattisse 19:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't you!

You didn't alienate me at all! In fact, I appreciate your conscientious approach. And in truth, I don't know anything about AMA except my own experience. And I do know that many good people, User:Imaglang (whom I have been beating up on so and who doesn't deserve that at all), you, User:Addhoc (who I very much value), User talk:Iamunknown (who is working hard to keep things on track), User:Wooyi (who gave me a barnstar for collecting information for him) and I am sure many others.

There are some bad apples though. User:Mongo complained about one, and although I have at times been very angry with him for being so abrupt, he does not deserve to be treated badly and harassed by a sock puppet with an AMA advocate.

And I do think the idea AMA is a good one if it's goal is to assist editors to understand what is going on and how to adjust to the Wikipedia culture. It took me a long time to figure out the little I have, and many mistakes. Maybe I am just over reacting to the whole thing. But certainly not you! You give me faith. Sincerely, --Mattisse 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow up

Since you provided a link to WP:ADOPT on my talk page I went over and checked it out, since I have been thinking about asking for that service myself after the AMA debacle. I saw the 500 edit minimum. That is appalling. Does that program work? I have around 20,000 edits having been here eleven months. I am finding it difficult to believe that a person with 500 edits could be of any benefit to me. After reading a few of the "suggestions" today being put forth by AMA Advocates for reform, it seems they are not addressing any of substantial the underlying problems like the enabling of sock puppets. My feeling is that there is something deeply wrong with AMA and that AMA should be shut down in it's current form. Sincerely, --Mattisse 16:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't use bots or anything like that. I just write and edit articles plus copy edit for editors trying to get Feature Article status for their article. It's only in the last few weeks I've even had a computer powerful enough to use popups, so I am just getting used to them. (I have no interest in running bots.} Except for the advice you gave (I believe it was you) to an editor in an editor warring situation (which we talked about before, if it was you) I have not seen one instance of AMA being useful. Glancing over Wikipedia:Editor assistance, it seems much more reasonable in its goals and not so geared for battle. I find the Arbitrators the most reasonable people, and the most friendly and accessible, which is quite the opposite view than the one AMA appears to hold. I noticed some Arbitrators posted useful suggestions on the AMA page, which appear to have been totally ignored by AMA. I would like to get help from somewhere as there is so much I do not understand at Wikipedia. Maybe you could help me. Do you think you would be willing to discuss some things with me? Sincerely, --Mattisse 16:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the problem exactly. I am "exopedian", as you say, and need help with the other side of things. For example, probably it is some "exopedian" trait of mine that has resulted in the AMA Coordinator refusing to close my "case under investigation". I am a very "by-the-book" kind of person. I have tried to mitigate this aspect but apparently not enough in certain situations. When I went to AMA originally I asked for feedback on my behavior, how I might be contributing to my own problems. On the Starwood issue, it turned out that the problem was mostly not my behavior but my lack of sophistication and lack of ability to defend myself against sock puppets. (So I need instruction on those sorts of things as well.) But on the AMA coordinator issue, I don't understand (although recently I have become increasing hostile toward him). How should I approach him in a way he will respond? I would like some honest feedback so I can be a little more "exopedian". Sincerely, --Mattisse 17:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well. You are right, of course. I have over reacted. I would never leave Wikipedia over AMA specifically. But is a sign of the direction Wikipedia is going. The Essjay thing, then I noticed User:Hipocrite retired or semi-retired again. And the User:MONGO thing, as he and I are friends here. And what User:Salix alba said about the massive Wikipedia community failure at all levels regarding Starword (although he and I disagree over the Arbitration outcome). And I came across a page with a gravestone on it of one of the founders of AMA, also disillusioned. It's possible to have wonderful working relationships like I do with User:Dineshkannambadi and his Feature articles, but then when a dear friend leaves over guilt because he was the one that recommended Jefferson Anderson to AMA (after a discussion we had over whether he should continue AFG in this case) then it breaks my heart as I still miss him. I need to be able to deal with the community at large and not just the specific relationships I have developed, the people who have stepped in to protect me. So now I am in a protected status, but instead of feeling better about Wikipedia I see the worst as exemplified by this whole AMA discussion (not my treatment specifically) but the way AMA has reacted to the challenge. I like your idea: Editorial Assistance. Can you help me become communitified? Sincerely, --Mattisse 23:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistance

Nope, not designed to replace or compete with AMA, the two are different enough processes that they can certainly coexist. As to any "prohibition" on being part of both, of course not! If people can help, why should we restrict where and how they do it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistance userbox

As you're a participant in Wikipedia:Editor assistance, I thought you might be interested in this new userbox that I've designed for the project. You can add it to your userpage with {{User Editor Assistance}}. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Very nice, thanks! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I was in the process of adding it to my userpage when you posted that to my talk page : p

Also, do you have any issues with playing with the colour scheme?

Anyway, thanks, this was a cool idea : ) - jc37 17:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Play with the colour scheme if you like. If you prefer it in a totally different colour, you could make a copy of it in your userspace and edit it accordingly. (Or alternatively, use substitution rather than transclusion, and edit the resulting copy on your userpage.) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Look at my user page and see the colour scheme. I matched it to the other Wikipedian templates. What do you think?

I like it! And you're right, it's more consistent with other similar WP project userboxes. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like it : ) - jc37 17:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't see why not. That would also let people set it up separately from using the userbox, some people don't like userboxes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No thanks

As you might have guessed from my userpage, I don't do userboxes. >Radiant< 07:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez picture

Hello Walton monarchist! I've noticed that you used Image:Hugo Chávez (2000).jpg on the no-Hugo Chavez userbox. However, the image is a fair use image, according to Wikipedia's Fair use policy, they should never be used in user pages. So please remove the picture and replace it with a public domain image of Hugo Chavez, if you'd like to. Thank you! Wooyi 16:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I found a picture Image:Chavez CASA cropped 1.jpg which is in public domain and you may use it to oppose Chavez. When I first made some userboxes I made that mistake too, an admin removed it and after that I became very careful about copyright of images. Wooyi 16:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the smile and editor review :) However, please do not nominate me for adminship now, because I just did it myself not long ago in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wooyi 2 and and it failed due to inexperience and a misconduct allegation (some unintended wrong reverting during my RC patrolling). But you are welcome to nominate me in several months though. Thanks again! Wooyi 16:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Discworld

Just out of interest, is your account named after the Discworld character Samuel Vimes? Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Neat character, even though I personally have little in common with the man. :) Sam Vimes | Address me 19:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistance sign-up

Hi,

Perhaps I am missing something, but I attempted to add myself to the list at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list without much success. The link (which was once blue) is now purple. Are there any additional steps which need to be taken? --Aarktica 19:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you! Your help is very much appreciated as well, I think this thing's actually going to work. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Majorly's RfB

Hey Walton monarchist89, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support, and I do intend to run again eventually. Happy editing! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 03:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User page

Is your user page reflective of you? Just wondering, as the page strikes me as unusual. Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Forgive me for being nosey but I saw you enquiring about being an editor. I must say I don't think the edit count is the main obstacle but losing one's temper and making rash comments are near-fatal unless you are very experienced. I would check on the most acrimonious exhang you've had and run it by a few folk. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 14:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha. I had a read of your old RfA. Something else important is to appear balanced and impartial. A casual observer, having seen where your politics and loyalties lie, may be somewhat taken aback if you only chose to watch right-wing pages for vandalism (which is what one of your opening comments on the RfA seems like, even if you didn't intend it to appear that way) - i.e. concerned about POV. These things are tricky, I'd also scan over articles for deletion and maybe do a spot of chores at the community noticeboard. Have you gone to SuggestBot's talk page? That's always a bit of fun....Anyway, good luckcheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe its nothing. Anyway, good luck whenever you run. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Another question...sorry!

Hi Walton, not bothered at all :) Yes, I think another month might be sensible. Also, it's important not to focus on adminship as a goal or something like that. Adminship is more about helping other people than attaining some sort of status for yourself, so it's important to treat it that way. Cheers mate, – Riana ^ऋ 16:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Aw, thanks! :) – Riana ^ऋ 16:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Walt, I just wanted to apologise for the delay in getting back to you about your adminship questions. Unfortunately, I've been having laptop problems and both times I started looking at your contribs, it crashed and acted like a troll. :) I will try to have a better browse over the weekend, probably tomorrow, but you do look like you are doing well. The only thing that has really jumped out at me is that you are still relatively "young" (but looking at Riana's comment, it sounds like that may have been mentioned to you already). Your monthly edit count was quite low until January, I think (from memmory, it has been a few days since I looked at your edit count, so apologies if I've got that wrong). Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about my promise. Have a happy and safe Easter. Cheers, Sarah 12:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. thanks for the smile!

Thanks for your answer!

It's refreshingly outright and uncomplicated (your answer that is -- your page another story). I think it is the only "conservative" page I have run across. So I'm guessing that you feel safe within your self. Maybe that is why you are so calming. Thanks! Sincerely, --Mattisse 16:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for the support vote in my recent RfA. Although it wasn't successful I appreciate your vote of confidence. Anyway, I'm continuing on with editing Pacific War-related articles and hopefully you'll see several of them on the FA nominations page in the future. Cla68 23:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

(Barnstar from Seraphimblade moved to userpage.) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Intentional

The "story" is both unsourced and derogatory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Motuleños (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the welcome.

Gordon Cheng

I have supplied references for the article as requested and expanded it so that Gordon's notability for his writing is clearly established. JRG 05:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

RE:Easter

Happy Easter to you too, Walton! Thank you for the barnstar...Stressful...Bleah...Happy editing! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Da.Tomato.Dude (talk • contribs) 19:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Request

Would you be my advocate? You are exactly what I need right now. It would be beautiful if you would accept. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the dispute anymore, although you are free to look through it. Perhaps it will give you a better understanding of the mistakes that I tend to make. I wish for you to help me evaluate situations more accurately and be a better person here at Wikipedia. I am not a long time internet user and I don't seem to get the hang of how to interact with certain people. And it seems I overreact and don't allow issues to remain in proper proportion. There is a lot I don't understand. Thank you so much! Sincerely, Mattisse 17:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How long do you think it will take for the Advocate request to be approved? A bad thing emerged yesterday and it will soon get bad for me again and will need your help. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to keep either of you waiting. I had thought I had posted this earlier, but I only hit the "preview" button. By all means, go ahead. This really isn't something that I need to "approve." :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 19:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

KFP's RfA thanks

Thank you for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a tally of 45/0/0. Please let me know if I can help with something or if I make a mistake. Cheers! --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for your recent support in my RfA. I was promoted. J Milburn 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness!

I'll start editing again. If a problem arises, I will ask you. I think you are just the right person for me. Sincerely, --Mattisse 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The last remaining sock puppet is back. Now he is harassing a poor other person who he has harassed before. When he starts in on me, I hope you will help me. Sincerely, Mattisse 12:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am on his watchlist and cannot name names, as I believe it will bring trouble upon me. In fact, even this statement may. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

See what has happened because of this? There is no point in a checkuser now. I have not looked at his user page so I do not know the user in question. I guess I should look. Please help. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

O.K. That sounds great. I answered the Advocate's first post, but I will not answer any more. Thank you so much. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again so much. I read your response to Jefferey Anderson and it all sounds very reasonable, so there should be no further trouble. Sincerely, --Mattisse 19:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings

No no no, I'm fine - no offence was taken on my part by your comments at Tohru's RfA. You can't help it, you're English! The English get on everyone's nerves. ;) That was a joke incase you didn't know. Anyway, in regard to my unordthidox methods towards RfA - There are a couple things I look for in a nominee. 1) Number of edits. Althoguh this may show quantity over quality, it gives a general of how long the user has been here (in regard to the earliest edit stats), what they prefer to do (administrative work or article writing, or both) etc etc. You seem to think though that there's a way to know how much quality a user puts into his edits - there's not. Sure you can provide a few diffs etc, but in my first week here I probably did a few great edits which you could look at & go, wow! Would you still make me an admin? No. Tohru has been here too short a time as well so she failed that catagory altogether. 2) I look at their user page second of all. If they're an ignoranus in the first paragraph of their user bio, then they're probably a less than civil wikipedian (heck, check my user bio & you can tell that I'm a complete & utter arse! ;) Tohru, whilst being really nice etc, didn't have many achievements (if any) outside of the trivial task of the quote of the day. 3) FA, FL or GA - you must have at least one. If you're a marginal editor, yet have a FA, then I'd probably give you the green light, but probably not if you had only a GA. My standards differ from person to person. 4) Gut feeling. This is drawn from my personal experiences with the user, what others have objected for, who is objecting & my overall gut feeling from the editor. Funnily, I usually read their questions last, if at all, as this is usually prepared rubbish that only shows their good side & downplays or misses any shortcomings. I'm in the process of writing an RfA standards subpage for myself now. This who discussion has been quite pointless though, as I've taken all this time writing, when these aren't even my full standards lol. Anyway, I think you get the picture - My vote is decided by many factors that can overide whether or not the user would abuse the tools. The more edits the user has determines to a slim degree at least whether they have the knowledge to make the descisions required. In this case, they were not. Cheers, :) Spawn Man 07:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd oppose you. Not to sound so matter of fact, but I'm not afraid to be honest. This may also help you if you ever decided to run for adminship again. I'll list why: 1) I always suggest at least 6 months between RfA attempts. I'm don't like to waiver unless it's a special circumstance - so far you'd be one down because right now it'd only be 5 months since your last RfA. 6 months is a nice rounded number. If the user has stayed that long & continued to make many quality edits whilst staying out of trouble, then it would be fair to say that that user has learnt some lessons from the last RfA. Considering also your behaviour on your last RfA, it would be safe to say that 6 months would be the least amount of time for you to wait. 2) I particulary despise editors who think they should automatically make it to adminship because they socialise & discuss policy. Sure, they'd probably make fine admins, but this is an online encyclopedia. New comers come to admins about encyclopedia related questions. Heck, would you really want some uneducated janitor running things & directing new recruits? Normally the answer would be no, but the Americans don't seem to mind about Bush. Anyway, I feel that admins should be all rounded, not socialites. It gets on my nerves even more when they say "but writers don't need the tools!?" as it shows they know they've made no attempt at doing what this site was made for (writing articles) & aren't ashamed for it. I'm not saying you are this person, but you do indeed have too low a mainspace count for me. 2K & I usualy feel comfortable to support & it usually helps ease my discision if I have a smaller complaint about the editor. 3) An editor is to know about fair use pictures & how to spot one. However, you have made zero uploads to Wikipedia. Even if you've uploaded content to Commons, everyone should at least have 5 or so files that they've uploaded to Wikipedia. 4) Although you registered in Feb 2006, your first few months were relatively inactive. I usually count months with over 50 edits as an active month. So if I applied that, you'd pass my 6-12 months minimum, but you'd still be at the lower end. However, like I said above, this is a small complaint & if you had over 2K mainspace edits, then that would help my decision to support. 5) Average edits per page. You have a low average. Some people (but not usually me as I'm kinda in the same boat) would say this is because you make small, non important, gnommish edits. This may or not be true, but opposes like this happen. This is very low on my radar, so this wouldn't really affect my judgement. 6) You have no Wikiproject edits as far as I can see. This shows little collaboration towards articles etc etc, so a minus. 7) Last & not least by far - FA's & GA's. You have a GA, not enough to cancel out your low mainspace count, lack of wikiproject edits, no uploads & shorter time here. If you had a FA or two, that would cancel out a couple of those for me & I'd probably support or at least vote neutral. So, there you have it. It took me a lot of time to write & I hoep this answers your question. Hopefully this may provide a guide if you need it to what I, & probably other editors, will be looking for. Thanks, :) Spawn Man 05:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No uploads is a big thing for many RfA goers - if just one person complains about it, it can usually turn into a pile on oppose vote reason. In one RfA which I brought up this complaint, the user uploaded a book cover - that's all it takes. Geesh, you're English, they have loads of stuff to photograph up there. So I'd probably still oppose until you uploaded something - Then if what you provided in your hypothetical situation was true, that you had all those stats & you had been keeping out of trouble, then I'd probably support. So yes, there you have it. I hope this satifies your hunger for my RfA standards lol. :) Spawn Man 03:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Mattisse

FYI, I have no interest in getting into any dispute with him. However, I wish he would stop calling me a sockpuppet when checkuser showed that I was not editing from the same IP as Frater Xyzzy and the sockpuppet case was closed without any admin feeling there was a need for action. Isn't it uncivil to keep bringing up past matters which had been dropped? It seems like this user has simply been misinterpreting my case in order to attack my previous advocate User:Imaglang, the AMA in general and the guy in charge of the AMA. Thadman? I feel used and abused by this. Jefferson Anderson 19:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. If there are further accusations, I will do as you suggest and inform my advocate. Jefferson Anderson 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that Walton, seems like our cases got tangled up with each other. Not sure on the Mattise issue(s) but I agree with you and think that both of these users need to leave each oter be as they have enough on there plate without extra helpings. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform

Regarding canvassing: we seem to have very similar opinions on this, would you mind taking a look at my own proposal and comment on it? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Funny and noteworthy how two regular voters come up with such similar proposals, isn't it? —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 11:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Email!

Could you please enable email? I'd like to send you one (gets all secretive). Teke 05:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Marco Mann

Please read the wiki:bio evidence I posted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marco_Mann that demonstrates the notability of Marco Mann, and please reconsider your vote. Jumpster 11:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Marco mann ..

The Wiki:bio page states special cases which fit Marco Mann and thus make him notable according to the encyclopedia. There is an offline magazine article and brocure that I have and I am sure the nominator knows about. The nomination was in bad faith and if the article really did break wiki guidlines it would have been put up for deletion a long time ago!! But that person told me explicitly that he wanted the article deleted after another article about Marco Mann was posted on the Arabic Wikipedia which he says he controls and so do others who work in the library of Alexnadria (please check his/my talk pages) .. So this is Individual/Corporate censorship of wikipedia and I believe that this is NOT what wiki is about. Jumpster 18:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I know you are trying to be objective. Dont worry, I am not being defensive, but dealing with this objectively as well. But the International Group for Art and Culture is a recognized contribution, and an eduring historic record in the world of Art.. please take a good look at the link I sent to the message archives and dont be too hasty to judge yahoo groups as something trivial or game-like, because this is the same mistake people make about wikipedia (and some even about the whole internet) .. You will find that the IGAC is a valuable ad indispensible resource for most people in the Art field with tens of new members joining every week from every part of the world; (please check and see for yourself) with this being the case and with all internet activities being archived and accessile to all future generations, could you tell me how This is not widely recognized (4000 members worldwide) and not enduring? .. you said you are not related to Art, but if you were, chances are you would already be very Familiar with Marco Mann and the IGAC. I not only want you to see this article in its true perspective and as result chang your vote, I also want to also help me convince others as well to vote to keep Marco Mann. With Respect, Jumpster 19:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The nominator is an IT specialist and is not related to Art at all, so how could he nominate an article for deletion that is about something he knows nothing about!! except if it was in bad faith? And why would he pursue it so vehemently unless he knows the artist personally in real life and has a bone to pick with him?? he mentioned that if the Artist had exhibited in the Alexandria Library he would have considered him notable and removed the AFD template!!! which I find very strange? and then it became evident that he is working in close ties with the Library (possibly an employee there) .. so what is that? extortion? you either exhibit in the library of Alexandria or you dont exist?? Is he trying to muscle alexandria articles to follow the Big Brother library?

Are you ready?

• I sure think you are ready. I see you at RfA's all the time and feel you have a good knowledge about what goes on there, plus you have plenty experience in editng and AfD. I will wait for your reply to set up the page or not. Hope to hear from you soon!  :) Kntrabssi 14:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, he is only one person. If you notice, even the most lopsided of RfA's in the positive have opposers (See User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me's third RfA). Plus, his criteria are extremely lofty, and none of what he's quoted is direct policy. You have enough edits to pass the communities expectations, and you will not hurt the project. While we can never be sure of the outcome of an RfA, I can tell you that I would support you fully. Plus, you can't pass if you don't go for it! Kntrabssi 17:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • She's up and running, so fill 'er out whenever you get a chance, and I'll change the date and list it at RfA. Good luck! Kntrabssi 17:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Walton, I have to run for a rehearsal, and I won't be back until the 15th, so when you are finished filling that out, go ahead and post it at RfA. I will add my support when I return. Kntrabssi 18:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Hi Walton. Good to see how well it's going so far. You see what I mean when I say "The best of editors are going to get opposition on RfA," don't you? While I won't be specific because I don't want to Canvas, I think you know what I'm talking about. But you look to be doing fine as of now. Good luck!!  :) Kntrabssi 03:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA and email

Howdy, ignore the email I just sent you. I was going to nominate you for adminship, but I see someone else was on it. I hope you don't mind, I took the liberty of writing up a brief co-nomination in its place. Not as detailed as I would have done had I been the sole nominator, but a little something extra anyway. Best of luck to you! Teke 19:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Half-serious question

Your userboxes inspire me to ask: As a monarchist, how can you support any American President? Shouldn't HM the Queen be restored to the throne over here? ;) Good luck on the RfA! Best wishes, Xoloz 20:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions on your RfA

Hi, I've added a couple of optional questions to your RfA. Thanks, Gwernol 20:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my questions. After careful consideration I decided to support your RfA. I would ask that you seriously consider the caveat I raised about your recent RfA spports. I genuinely believe that we need to show more discrimination in who we give the tools too, because an admin who misunderstands and/or misapplies policy could be tremendous damage to the project. Thanks, Gwernol 16:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we're in general agreement, we just draw the line in different places. For example I disagreed with your support of Smcafirst because I thought there was clear evidence that this user had some fairly serious misunderstandings of policy. I don't believe supporting that user (a this time of course) is in the best interests of Wikipedia or of Smcafirst. Gwernol 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Archive_4, thank you very much for your support in my successful RfA. I am thankful and humbled by the trust that the community has placed in me, and I welcome any comments, questions or complaints that you may have. Again, thank you for your support, and happy editing! Hemlock Martinis 22:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

You are the best! (However, there are only something like 63 self-identified "conservative" Wikipedians out of ???? Not exactly a massive number. The more power to you!} Sincerely, --Mattisse 01:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

I've withdrawn your RfA due to a large number of opposing votes, as per WP:SNOW. Sorry, but... well I'm sorry but I'm joking. ;) Anyway, what I really came here to say is that I've placed a few questions on your RfA & a proposition below my oppose vote which will gain my support. Thansk, Spawn Man 08:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm, you do know that one of my terms for my support was that you did actually upload a picture or media file to either Commons or Wikipedia (Preferably Wikipedia as it's easier for me to track if you've done the task...). Other than that, the rest counts on Good Faith, as you only have to say that you'll get more mainspace edits later on. So basically, all you need to do now for me to support is to upload a photo or somthing with the correct liscence - not too hard & then I'll support. :) Spawn Man 00:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Question?

Would it be possible for you to find out why User:SilkTork felt he had to advise me "to be more open and honest and less dissembling and deceitful in future"?[5] As far as my mail being lost, it was and I had that problem over a few days with other users too. (Ask User:WeniWidiWiki, for example.) A vandal was fiddling with my email address and someone else was getting my mail. User:SilkTork, my AMA Advocate, never resent his lost email, so I do not know what it said. I do no like being discussed in negative ways on talk pages, such as assuming that I was dishonest and dissembling and deceitful. I was not dishonest, dissembling and deceitful as far as I know. I would like to know what he means, what evidence he is going on. If I was as he describes me, then I need to know what I did or said that he evaluated that way. Would you help me with this please? A negative image is being perpetuated about me on AMA talk pages. AMA does not AGF about me. Is this not the very opposite of what AMA is supposed to stand for? What should I do? Please help. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh thank you. This type of assumption (accusation) bothers me extremely. I do not know what he is talking about and I never remember receiving that advice from him. He did solicit information from multiple sock puppets and their allies who were attacking me at the time and maybe he received that impression from them. He never asked me questions about anything. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"dissembling" and "deceitful"

My advice at the time was in relation to her past known deceitful behaviour - the admitted use of sockpuppets Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse. I advised her to be more open, honest and direct with people - and that way they would start to trust her and believe her. Clearly she did not take that advice as she presented a case about me that was untrue and rather hurtful. "I sent him at least five emails. He did not answer them. I posted several times on his page with no response. Going to his page, hoping to see a response, I saw he had removed my name from his list of cases and removed my posts. I went to my AMA page and saw that he had withdrawn from the case. He did not inform me of this, he never asked my opinion about anything nor given my any feedback. He still has not answered my emails. He did not even notify me he had withdrawn." The statements in bold are not true. As for this request [6] that I give her feedback on information I collected on her. All the public information can be found here [7]. I did get some emails, but they - of course - are private. Not that there was anything said in those emails which had not been said on Wiki's talkpages already. Is this the explanation you were looking for? SilkTork 21:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

can you help?

Dear Walton, Please help to establish a NPOV voice in Reza shah Page. A group of Iranchamber blogers are trying to replace and delete all sourced material in Reza Shah page. I have reverted the article to the old protected version. But I am sure that they will overrule me. Unfortunately, they do this in spite of all policies with respect to assuming good faith, verifiability, etc. .

The pro-Reza shah group of editors refer to conspiracy theories to discredit historical facts and disregard all sourced materials. They just bring new editors from Iranchamber(the newest is Arad, after shervink, Rayis, the Behnam, Khorshid, Agha Nader, Mehrshad123,SG-talk, and ...)and by building a majority try to distort facts that

• Reza Shah sympathized with Nazi Germany, making the Jewish community fearful of possible persecutions, and many of his policies at the time was definitely anti-Jewish,
• they call him "Great", and delete any reference that this title was given to him by a decree of his despotic son,
• they delete any reference to the role of British and General Ironeside to bring him to power in a coup,
• they delete any reference that his program of reform was demanded by British in conjunction with the failed Anglo-Persian treaty of 1919 to stop the threat of Bolshevics.

• they delete all references to his corruption, the fact that he started as a poor soldier and ended up is the richest land owner in the country, and

• the fact that he killed numerous intellectuals, journalists, politicians and so on.

For example, Edvin Black materials in the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Jewish Review according to them is discredited, so also is the book by Sanasarian, Eliz (2000). Religious Minorities in Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-77073-4.

We have tried to introduce some of these facts. But have been accused of sock puppetry. Artaxerex, Melca, and I are not related but we believe in facts (although, Artaxerex had asked some of his students to contribute to the page but they all are banned now). The pro_reza Shah group may ban me soon and then I will not be able to even ask for help from people like you. I am hopping that you act as a champion for turth and NPOV in this article.

Thanks, Yima 16:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Walton, this is most probably a sock or meat puppet of the master Artaxerex (talk · contribs). He and his puppets have disrupted a number of Pahlavi articles, and has continuously called every other editor to be "bloggers", members from "iranchamber", etc and I am really losing any will over any development of these articles because this just too disruptive. So far Artaxerex has not been indefinitely banned but I think after this case he should be. What do you suggest? Regards, --Rayis 17:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with you Walton, even though you are being very reasonable. Artaxerex has been proven a sock puppet master, furthermore he has even said it that he will get his students to edit this page! I honestly don't believe we can really say that my reasons for calling this user a sock or meat puppet is as unjust as this user is calling every other editor of that article the same thing as what Artaxerex was saying and he has no evidence what so ever besides that no one agrees to his attempt to introduce his ideas in a uncivil manner! this has going on for about 2 months where everyone are accused of being a "gang" on Pahlavi pages, it is very disruptive and uncivil and last thing we need is an admin taking sides with this user. --Rayis 17:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Walton, Thank you very much for your advice. I will not revert the page to previous protected version. I apologize for being frustrated. I have written to Rayis and asked him not to accuse me of sock puppetry. However, I have to admit that I agree with the position of Artaxrex and Melca on Reza Shah as they are virtually the same as any historical records incuding some other related topics of Wikipedia e.g., Persian Jews -- Of course I do not know these two personally. I will be away until December and I hope things will be more civil by then. Thank you again for your advice. Yima 18:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for following up the case. Yes I see that he has. Well I am submitting the RFCU just to make sure we have documented evidence and I haven't wrongly accused anyone of anything. Regards, --Rayis 19:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to update you that the [case] was confirmed :) Cheers, --Rayis 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey man that's all good. Let's hope he was truthful about being back in December so I can relax for a bit! have a good day, --Rayis 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply!

I am about to post my response under his accusations, as I believe it is wrong to allow such untruths remain unanswered. I know from experience that eventually the remaining sock puppet (or his sockpupet) will use it against me. I have learned the hard way that such slander cannot go unanswered here. If you feel this is the wrong thing to to please let me know. I do not believe, on the basis of what Steve posted to you and also on my AMA Advocate request page the it is possible to have a reasonable conversation with him. He is supposed to be an AMA Advocate and AGF! Please feel free to prove me wrong! Sincerely, Mattisse 18:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

O.K. Will do. But please someone look at the actual evidence, please. It is all documented - my sockpuppets, the conclusions that everyone came to last fall about this , etc. I provided the deocumentation. Why does no one look. No one even looks at diffs. I do not understand this mode of operation. I really did think AMA was a responsible organisation at the time, so it never occured to me that no one actually would look at evidence and instead do public opinion polls to convict. Well, there are some very good peole here, and so very thankfully, many of them are my friends and put up with my foibles. And are kind to me. And I thank you for being so kind to me also. Sincerely, --Mattisse 19:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reply but is there no compromise?

You say "Steve will be satisfied "if you retract the statements he regards as unfair, that is, 'I went to my AMA page and saw that he had withdrawn from the case. He did not inform me of this, he never asked my opinion about anything nor given my any feedback. He still has not answered my emails. He did not even notify me he had withdrawn.' "

I am willing to do this but does he not have to reciprocate in some way?

Does he not have to retract his personal attacks on me? My former AMA Advocates User:SilkTork and Steve The Thadman do not appear to have AGF at all. Never have they advised me to improve my behavior even though that request (or a similar one) was in my original AMA Advocate request.

User:SilkTork's personal attack:

(Note: Steve Caruso said on a talk page that all my AMA Advocates thought I was an awful, manipulating, dispicable person and disliked me from the very beginning. (I am paraphrasing as I cannot find the page the comments were on.) He also accused him with harassing him.)

I would like to support Steve Caruso's comments above - I also became frustrated with Mattisse's approach, attitude and demands. And having recently come upon Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates in which Mattisse calls for AMA's deletion I am somewhat surprised that she asks here again for assistance. She is an experienced Wikipedian who can communicate quite effectively by herself and certainly is well aware of Wiki procedures. My own feelings are that she uses advocates much as she used her sockpuppets in order to gather support for herself. I feel she is manipulative and exploitive and is quite volatile and hurtful. I am personally hurt that she has been leaving negative comments about me on Wikipedia when I tried to assist her in a patient and supportive manner. I bitterly regret that I tried to help. She appears to be rather self-obsessed and detached from an awareness of how her behaviour and words can be hurtful to others. She is possibly in need of professional counseling. I am reacting now in response to reading today some of what she has said about me. She wrote untrue statements about me even after the explicit and lengthy advice I gave her at the time was to be open and honest in her dealings with people on Wiki. SilkTork 21:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: He supplies no diffs. The only advice he gave me was to sit back and have a cup of tea.

I am willing to with draw the statement I made on the page he requests to satisfy him if I am allowed to post a reply under his personal attack of me on Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mattisse the proposed following his statements:

---Proposed statement I would like to post under SilkTork's personal attack on Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mattisse---

In dealing with User:SilkTork I assumed he consulted the evidence I had provided in my original request for an AMA Advocate as he said he would do an in depth investigation of my case which would take some time. If he had he would of found all the evidence of sock puppets and such there, as I did not hide anything in the links I provided in my original AMA request. He did not do so but instead did a superficial survey of a few parties in the Starwood case, one later found to be a sock puppet User:999 and another the only individual cautioned about his behavior in the Starwood Arbitration Decision

If you check the links he sent my current AMA advocate, it appears he based his opinion on me on [8] (which, as you know, is merely everyone's preliminary comments) to the Starwood Arbitration and SilkTork totally disregarded the actual Arbitration and ultimate findings and decision on the links below.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Proposed decision

Thus substance of the workshop and some explanatory posting by Blnguyen (bananabucket) on ANI were that User:999, User:Hanuman Das, User:Frater Xyzzy, plus several others were all sock puppets of User:Ekajati and banned or block. (You can check this out by going to User:Ekajati and clicking on her confirmed sock puppet list.) Also check the finding of the Arbitrators under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Proposed decision

(quoted)

2) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same geographic area are sock puppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behaviour of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.

The Arbitration dropped me as an issue and did not endorse the proposals that anything in my behavior during the fall and winter of 2006 that was wrong.

The proposed findings issue cautions against User:Rosencomet on issues of COI. They found no evidence that I was deceptive as User:SilkTork states as fact.

The second link User:SilkTork gives to his Archive where he has stored the "evidence" he collected against me from the people he solicited from[9]

• First he lists User:Rosencomet containing many inaccurate statements that he apparently accepted at face value. User:KarenAnn was not a sock puppet but a name change accomplished under the formal Wikipedia name changing processes. He calls me schizophrenia, admits that the sock puppets found by check user did not always make sense, nor were always destructive to his articles, and continues to maintain that a long-ago case of sock puppets under my account, a situation called "old news" in the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mattisse filed by sock puppets User:Hanuman Das and User:999 is the cause of all his problems today. This was discredited long ago, namely in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mattisse but also in various ANI's filed against me for which I can supply diffs.

• Second, he ignored the results of Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mattisse (found at the bottom of the page). [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse&diff=95119114&oldid=91081432] when I received much support from people I did not even know and User:Rosencomet, User:999, User:Ekajati and User:Hanuman Das received none.

• Third, he seems to have relied on comments of User:999 later found to be banned/blocked as a sock puppet.

He disregarded the favourable comment made by AdelaMae (who I must quote, as the archive he has the "evidence" in has no diffs: I don't really consider myself involved in the Starwood/WinterStar/ACE embroglio, though I've read some of the discussion and made a few comments. I know I haven't seen everything, but I haven't seen behavior from Mattisse that would justify the negative reactions I've seen from Rosencomet, 999, Ekajati, and Hanuman Das, who seem to edit as one when it comes to this issue. I haven't noticed any gross incivility or serious/recent violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines by Mattisse. Please take a moment to compare [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AdelaMae&diff=86806714&oldid=85900770 her first comment to me] with the [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AdelaMae&diff=86808348&oldid=86806714 response by 999]. Also note that Mattisse received overwhelming support in the outside view of a recent user conduct RfC. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC) - Did he check out those diffs, as they are all favourable to me and show the pattern the sock puppets used in harassing me?

He did not even ask User:Salix alba's opinion who has been involved in the story right from the beginning when sock puppets were first found on my computer. Nor did he consult with may other supporters of me. He does not note that my computers's sock puppets make relatively few edits, some not making any at all, and some making only innocuous ones. Nothing those sock puppets did compares with the organised sock ring that was closed down. There were, I think, three cases of vote stacking that had no effect on the ultimat result - that was about the worst. There were even positive contributions by the socks, and even one original article that they liked and subsequently kept about a book.

He did not check out other evidence listed in my application, such as

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Puppetmaster Mattisse repeatedly removing puppetmaster tag

Nor did he check out administrator User:Aguerriero (old name - now deleted) how repeatedly harassed me and served the needs of he sock puppets all through the fall of 2006. Then, when he was put in the Starwood case under a new name, his first act was to post this, further making a joke out of me: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mattisse//Ars_Scriptor_%26_Aguerriero#Mattisse_redux] User:Ars Scriptor retired from Wikipedia after promising to get back with me when I has him about his a few incidences of harming me he was involved in under his old name.

He never asked me for any suggestions as to who to contact or anything else except, to his credit, he did heed my request to stop spreading my name around Wikipedia in headings and edit summaries to all my attackers (mostly sock puppets).

What should I do? Am I to AGF here? User:SilkTork's remarked about me are malicious, slanderous and untrue. No one else but my past AMA Advocates (other that the sock puppets, sock puppet friend and past coworker, Jefferey Anderson, have bad opinions of me on Wikipedia. It feels to me that User:SilkTork was against me almost from the beginning. Even User:Jefferson Anderson's AMA Advocate at the time asked SilkTork at the time to stop his public humiliation of me in soliciting so publicly opinions of me and suggested he have more contact with me.

Without consulting you, I do not want to take further steps. But I will not let User:SilkTork get away with such derogatory statements about me without comment.

I know from experience that these personal attacks will be used against me when the sock puppet ring arises again and will cause me much misery on Wikipedia. Please look at my edits and notice that I have made over 17,000 mainspace edits and that I have not engaged in trouble making activities except for the episode when the sock puppets were created on my computer for a short period last summer/fall. That was quickly shut down. I have done nothing wrong since but have had to continually defend myself.

Further, I request that User:SilkTork supply some diffs to support his statements and to show that he did anything positive for me, except to advice me to have a cup of tea comment.

Sincerely, Mattisse 13:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again

I will consider and perhapes even retract as you suggest. But those are true statements, nonetheless. And his comments are so out of line, and his only offer is that I retract mine? This seems to me Alice in Wonderland. I'm asking you in all candor, is that the way AMA is? I wonder if it helps the AMA Advocate program when negligence is swept under the rug. Also, in the Starwood Arbitration, when a user made a less inflammatory but still inappropriate comment (I thought the comment was humorous) saying that I was actually a group of incarcerated inmates, he was immediately blocked. Yet AMA Advocates have made several uncivil comments about me and that appears to be condoned. And why did everyone leap to Steve the Thadman's defense when he assumed no AGF and took general statements made on a talk page as personal attacks on him? That seems incredible. One wonders, as isn't an AMA Advocate supposed to be a model of some sort? And why did no one give me any feed back that I was such an awful person when I asked for such feedback all along.

Truly, I ask you again to give me that kind of feedback. I only started using the internet recently, so I am a clod when it comes to some of the conventions of communication that everyone else seems to know about. Because I am a writer and can use words well, people like SilkTork think I am sophisticated in other ways too. When it comes to Wikipedia that is not true. I didn't learn how to get diffs until last fall, and it was around Christmas that I learn that my stalkers used User Contribution List to stalk me. I had never thought of that. I have been on Wikipedia less than a year and I am not a young or technical person.

What SilkTork said about me is the worst I have seen anyone say about anyone on Wikipedia. Frankly, I am surprised that someone in AMA Advocate did not do anything about it. In every other situation, someone else would have jumped in to protect.

Sincerely, Mattisse 16:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. SilkTork made a true personal attack -- no two ways about it. I might file an ANI about it. --Mattisse 16:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Tomorrow might be too late. I don't know if there are deadlines on these filings but he went way beyond he pale. He accused me of using sockpuppets and AMA Advocaes to manipulate for my own ends etc. -- what ends would I be possibly achieving? It is way over the line. One sockpuppet attacked me by telling me to take a sharp razor and stick it up my ass and twist it. Of course, he was immediately blocked, even before I knew he had made the comment. To me, SilkTork's comment is much more offensive. Besides, he is hardly ever on line. So if you wait for that, it could be awhile. What harm is there if I file one? I never have filed one before, except in response to one filed against me. It would be good experience and I am getting braver. I am tired of being a wimp. And if I am wrong, then the community will tell me so. It is all this hush-hush coverup stuff that causes trouble as I see it. His "compromise" was an insult. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Re. Just out of interest...

Well, since you asked, I can say that I found the Bush supporting and the death penalty userboxes as the most unsettling. Particularly Bush's. I usually regard Bush supporters as either unable to make balanced, wise judgements or willing to side with him just for personal gain, in a most reprehensible and irresponsible way. This is my personal view of course, and naturally has little to do with adminship. I wish you good luck on becoming an administrator, and hope that your future involvement with Wikipedians from all over the world may allow you to be in touch with many different perspectives that might even cause you to rethink your endorsement of Bush's actions. Use your tools wisely! Regards, Húsönd 16:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You demonstrate good character indeed. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 16:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a self-conscious but joyously curious Christmas Island red crab for you! Self-conscious but joyously curious Christmas Island red crabs somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing!--Húsönd 16:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Actually, there is nothing he can say to "explain". He has treated me this way all along. It does not matter "why" he felt that way, does it? Isn't the point of AGF and the rules about being civil that no matter "why" you feel a certain way, you do not make personal attacks.

His justifications will just be more of the same -- that I am such a demanding, unreasonable, awful person that he is allowed to make it. Just like Steve The Thadman's personal attacks against me were O.K. because they were just "blunt" statements. SilkTork can say the same thing and AMA thinks that is fine. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

What about the AMA Coordinator's personal attacks? They were defended by another AMA Advocate. Then, in addition, SilkTork makes a personal attack on me to defend Steve The Thadman's personal attack!

I fully realise that not all AMA Advocates are like this. But the AMA Coordinator is and so are some proportion of others, and it is completely unacceptable behavior and all the more so for an AMA Advocate. Do you think emails or any evidence "justifies" personal attacks? He is an AMA Advocate, was my AMA Advocate.

I do not understand where you are coming from on this. What does "no personal attacks" mean? What does being civil mean? No personal attacks unless there is sufficient justification as decided by whom??? Arbitration????

And I say again, the statement that Steve would be "satisfied" if I took back my remarks is felt as an insult by me in the face of what he said about me. I talked about his behavior. He trashed my personality and motivations. AGF rests on the foundation that we do not know the motivations of others.

Sincerely, Mattisse 17:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you want my emails?

I sent you one and receiving no reply assumed you do not deal in emails as you have stated you believe AMA Advocates should deal openly. I do not have your email address so I cannot forward them. For the record, he was my AMA Advocate from January 21 to January 23, 2007. During this time he proceed to spread my name in headings and edit summaries around the web, openly asking the sock puppets and the person accused of COI their opinion of me. Both I and another AMA Advocate asked him to stop doing this as he was being way too open and stirring things up in the middle of the Starwood Arbitration. The other AMA Advocate said to him he felt he was harmining me by this behavior. He did not consult with me as to who to contact.

I can forward emails to you if I have your email address. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I did post the ANI, even though you wished me to wait. But I think it may work out well, as I will get a reality check. I need real feedback about my behavior. I'm hoping to get some. I am looking for honest feedback, ways I can improve. I hope I have not alienated you by doing this. I do not think it will injure SilkTork in any way. Truly I do not. If anything, it will humble me and teach me something. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Tired

I am so tired of this Mattisse business. I have just read some of the things she has been saying about me on your talk page. Gee. I so wish I never tried to help her. I am so mad and hurting right now. SilkTork 23:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment

[10] This is Silktork's newest comment. Do you think there is hope? I did discover from reading his talk page that he feels the sock puppets were a lie.

Truthfully, I have not a clue anymore how AMA works. But if you want some clarification on the sock puppet issue I will provide you with some links from my AMA Advocate request. Read them if you want to know. Please ask questions if there are parts you do not understand, as it is complicated.

• Puppetmaster Mattisse repeatedly removing puppetmaster tag - this is an ANI filed against me where I was supported by the admins over whether I could remove a sockpuppet tag from my user page.

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse - this one is a little messed up as one of the filers withdrew User:Hanuman Das and an unqualified by the rules person(Geo - who was supposed to be our mediator in our mediation case) took his place under the endore section. Please look under Outside view - that is where I received my support, while the sock puppets filing the RFC received none - unless you count Geo - who, by the way, has sent me several posts asking me if I want an AMA Advocate.

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mattisse - the talk page associated with the RFC.

I am not wanting to cause SilkTork any pain. But I cannot have people making such personal attacks. I do not know what he wants from me. I was much harsher on Eugenio for "springing" the sock puppet from Arbitration on the MFD page, yet he did not take it personally and is friendly and unfailingly helpful, even now. I believe you are like Eugenio. And I thank you. I hope our different styles do not discombobulate you -- as I am a quickly moving person by nature (although 65 years old) -- but I have the feeling you can handle me with your calmness and methodical ways of proceeding. Really, I am not a bad person and do not want to cause other people pain. But as I have said before, I have learned the hard way that you have to protect yourself here. SilkTork's words will be used against me during the next round of attacks if they are allow to remain as is. I'm hoping you understand. Sincerely, --Mattisse 01:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Check this Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse and look at the number and type of edits made by each sock puppet and at the range of articles over what time line. Compare the results with User:Ekajati's sockpuppets Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati in the same way. I will explain what happened in my case, but only by email as in the past any of my posts on the subject have been used against me. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)