User talk:SilkTork/AMA Archive/Mattisse

Thanks!

What is happening now is way over my head anyway, and the outcome is out of my control as I cannot follow what is happening. What I need is someone who will help me understand how to function on Wikipedia in general without getting into trouble and give me constructive critisism about my behavior. It would be wonderful if you would do that. I'm not very technical nor even used the internet until recently. Sincerely, Mattisse 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse

Hi Rosencomet! Mattisse has requested assistance. She has mentioned you in her request. I am starting to look into the issue. Any background information you could give me would be very welcome. Cheers. SilkTork 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Silktork. I don't envy you the position you are embarking on. I can't really add much to the TONS of data available from the talk pages of the involved parties and the 2 mediations and one arbitration opened on me and the work I've done, most of which IMO has been triggered by the irresponsible actions of User:Mattisse. I can try to give you a brief my-eye view of it. I do caution you not to take at face value any attempt by her to cast herself as a victim, or as a wide-eyed novice to either Wikipedia or the internet. Her user page identifies her as both a psychologist and a doctor of philosophy, and the number of edits she has made since May 2006 is frankly astounding, as is the number of sockpuppets she has operated under. She seems to have begun using multiple names from the very beginning, like User:KarenAnn, and used about half a dozen in the first week of her editing Starwood Festival, the primary page in the mediations & arbitration I've been enmired in. There is a list available of 18, and I suspect there are more.

She began targetting my work within a week of my first edit. She bombarded the pages with tags under different user names, accused the author of promotion, false data, and all sorts of other things. When a couple editors helped me supply many citations (which, at the time, were only requested to verify the facts), she began accusations that the links added were there to linkspam and google-bomb (terms I had never even heard of). She rallied others to help and delete the very citations she had demanded, stalked the wiki articles linked to Starwood, also challenged other facts in the text, and triggered a revert war. Once she got others to join in, she mostly stopped directly editing but kept egging them on and keeping the flames going. The objections kept changing; unsourced, unverified, non-notable, spam, ad-like, self-promoting - new ones as quick as I could satisfy the old.

Not only did she create the impression that a lot of editors were in agreement with her that my work was a problem, she actually added and changed names, CREATED fake articles and false claims on articles, linked them with the Starwood article, then posted messages on the talk pages of other editors saying "the Starwood folks are at it again". She regularly refered to any article I touched as "having been taken over" by me, and called ANY interference with this outrageous behavior "harassment". She argued on my talk page and those of anyone supporting me, using different names, and visited the articles of those editors with similar behavior. I will say, though, she has not accused me personally of harassment.

Her behavior has been very oddly schizophrenic. I'm not using that term as a psychologist would, but in the colloquial way. She has contradicted herself many times. She has, at times, used sockpuppets and tried to blame them on her grandchildren or people visiting at her house. She has even asked editors to help her determine which sockpuppets were actually hers. She seems to have argued on BOTH sides of deletion proposals, even ones that SHE started, all under different names. She has angered several editors to the point of rather harsh reactions, and in one or two cases (that I know of) contributed to their leaving Wikipedia completely IMO. I also think that in the case of Timmy12, she bears a great deal of responsibility; he never would have been accused of sockpuppetry if not for the combination of the many socks Mattisse used and the fact that Timmy12 was encouraged to engage in the same behavior as she.

At this point, there are 3 editors who seem absolutely determined to drive me out of Wikipedia and take down all the work I have done, and I doubt this would be the case if not for her behavior. I know I did not do everything correctly in the first couple of months I was editing, but there were a few editors who were helping me improve my work so it would be in compliance with Wiki policies, and I have worked hard over the past two months deleting much of what was objected to and citing, verifying, and adding 3rd-party sources. But partly due to Mattisse's influence IMO, these editors are so set against me that nothing will satisfy them anymore.

The request that you are responding to is, in part, another example of her desire to keep every real or imagined offense against her alive and hotly active, and drag as many people as possible into her personal drama, while denying her own part in any of the unpleasantness. She continues to rally people in her defense against her supposed victimizers on one hand, while declaring that she doesn't know what she did wrong and claiming she has nothing against the people she keeps making these accusations against on the other. I have said, and I'll say it again at risk of accusations of not AGF, that I truly don't know why she does what she does, or even if SHE knows. But she has helped cause and helps perpetuate chaos for many editors, IMO.

I hope this helps give you a sense of things, and I hope you review the material before you commit yourself to anything. I hope you ask the previous advocates why they thought there was nothing more to be done, and look closely at the dates of the issues involved to see what might be a non-cunstructive ressurection of dead issues. My motivation has always been to write and improve articles, and I've been able to do little of that for quite a while because of the mess she, in part, has plunged me into. I'm sorry if this sounds overly strident or negative, but I feel like I've been dragged over broken glass, and I see no end in sight as long as I stay an editor. Rosencomet 22:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More comments by AdelaMae

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 her first comment to me with the 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)[reply]

Comment on this comment

Actually, Hanuman Das, 999 and Ekajati have critiqued my work, especially early on, and at times advised me to either abandon the attempts to save a particular article that they thought could not be made to pass notability muster, or to revert something I did or said that was questionable, and helped delete many external links once the mediation seemed to conclude that they were neither necessary nor appropriate in the numbers that had accumulated due to Mattisse's citation tags. Their guidance has helped me be a better editor, IMO. On the other hand, Pigman, Kathryn and Weniwediwiki can certainly be said to "edit as one" on this issue, and Pigman & Kathryn are co-founders of the tradition discussed in the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism article which they both heavily edit and defend. On the other hand, as to AdeleMae's comment about Mattisse apparently not being guilty of gross inciviluty and/or serious recent violations, I would agree with that. Rosencomet 18:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse Redux

Tis a long harrowing tale. If you wish to ask me questions, I will tell you my perceptions. However I would rather give you a few background links not on Mattisse's AMA request and let you draw your own conclusions.

And of course most recently the Starwood arbitration:

Caveat: Since I am currently involved in the Starwood arbitration, I doubt I can give you a totally unbiased view but I would try my best. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 04:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse

My opinion is that the woman should have been blocked long ago. EOM. 999 (Talk) 06:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC) (Note: this User:999 is a sock puppet of User:Ekajati and has been banned from Wikipedia indefinately.')[reply]

Matisse advocacy background

Hi, I'm one of your fellow AMA and I'm also acting as advocate for User:Jefferson Anderson in the same case as you. Actually, I was who resurrected Matisse's request. The background is simple: there is a discussion on whether is legimite or not to use your own website as source. And, also, there are multiple satellite sockpuppetry accusations and your advocee is accused to be a puppetmaster. Nothing else, but enough serious, at least to me. I would have taken the case, but obviously I can't. There have been Checkuser tests, etc. and an arb has recused in the middle of the whole thing. The case is a mess, go carefully, be subtle and think twice before doing anything; now the thing is somehow calmed down, but has the enough tension to explode again, hurting your advocee, who is objectively so confused that she doesn't even know how to defend herself. I really would appreciate if you help resolving this issue and to help her. Greetings! --Neigel von Teighen 10:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to argue but just to clarify: the mediation seems to have concluded that citing the website of the organization that runs the event (which is not "my website") IS a legitimate way of verifying the simple fact that an appearance of a subject did occur on a date in question, and other simple factual information, but that 1. individual multiple links to that site by each name & fact were both unnecessary and inappropriate, as the simple inclusion of the website in the reference section should cover it, and 2. to determine if an appearance is notable in the article of a subject, more may be necessary, for instance a third-party citation, a mention on the website of the subject, and/or some notable supporting fact such as the existence of a commercially-produced recording made of the subject's appearance (at least Salix Alba agrees this third factor supports notability, and no one has contradicted this). Many such citations have been supplied, and most external links have been eliminated. There also seems to be a generally-accepted opinion that for at least SOME of the artists, especially (but not necessarily limited to these) Pagan/spiritual/New Age speakers who have not spoken at so many venues that mention of one seems to violate "undue weight". The mediations have made it QUITE CLEAR that such issues should be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

It seems to me that the discussion has moved to how many internal links between the event's article and those of the artists appearing at it may be TOO many, and whether the lists of past speakers and entertainers are "unencyclopedic". There are major differences of opinion on this, compounded by the fact that there are no guidelines in Wikipedia for how many items should be in such lists and under what circumstances, and individuals on BOTH sides have been accused of expressing opinions colored by COI and POV issues.

The rest, in my opinion, consists of a constant drumbeat on the part of some to keep past accusations of harassment and other forms of wrong-doing alive to curry favor for one side or another's position, or perhaps to try to get one or more editor blocked so the other side can have a free hand to do their will. I would certainly like to see that sort of thing end. I would be happy to even lay the issue of Mattisse's sockpuppets to rest, if the behavior it caused in response was also laid to rest. But there are some who want to call what Matisse did "old news", but keep the response a live issue. Rosencomet 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments. SilkTork 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

after today

I am going to abandon my account and register under a new name. I cannot take this any more. I am telling you this openly so there is no deceit. CompletelyHeadless 02:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For some reason my comments to your page are not registering. I have made several as you are making things worse. You are spreading my name around when I have asked you several times to stop. You are asking people's opinions who have recorded pages of what they think of me already. Please stop and at least consult relevant people instead. Please stop harming me. Please!

Comments noted. I will stop until advised otherwise. SilkTork 08:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my above request. I made it because of the reasons given in my several emails to you. Please continue. CompletelyHeadless 13:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What is your time schedule, as I can't seem to get into communication with you and feel we are working at cross purposes? Is there a way we can have a more clarifying conversation? I am in the dark about what you are doing. I want you to continue, but I would like to know what you are doing as you go along and not days later. The Arbitration devolved into chaos yesterday and may simply explode. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will get in touch. SilkTork 15:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When? I made a series of entries that maybe I should not have, but since you do not answer email and I cannot be candid here, how can I get advice? Things are happening very fast. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Matisse advocacy background

I don't have any opinion on her behaivor, mainly because I'm rather more concerned on what's happening with my advocee. I, honestly, don't pay too much atention in her situation; that is supposed to be your job, ;). Anyway, I repeat you I, in your case, would be more close to her and more silently... But, well, is your case, not mine. Good luck! --Neigel von Teighen 09:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err... you're not listed as an active AMA member... You should do it here, so anyone can see you're part of us! --Neigel von Teighen 09:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was listed. It showed my real name. I have now adjusted it so that my username is displayed. Thanks for the headsup. SilkTork 15:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this advice, given to you by the above person who also advised you of this previously. He said you could do me great harm by this method of approach (I am paraphrasing). This is what I feel as well. Please continue but please consider the advice of this person and my own views. My feeling is that he and I may have a better feel for what is happening here. I wish you were more responsive by email as I do not like posting but apparently I must. CompletelyHeadless 14:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse

Hi, I'm currently acting as advocate for Mattisse, at her request. I appreciate I don't know the earlier background to her involvement with the AMA, but she is a little concerned about why you recently accused her of "dissembling" here at the time when you were her advocate. In terms of your emails to her being lost, she says that this was due to a vandal altering her email address, causing someone else to receive her mail. As I said, I don't know the background to this situation; I've checked the records, but so much of the case happened off-wiki that I can't really tell what was going on. But she's told me that she feels quite hurt by your description of her as "dissembling" and "deceitful" on the AMA talk page. So I'd appreciate some further explanation. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1] that I give her feedback on information I collected on her. All the public information can be found here [2]. 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)[reply]

Add this [3] SilkTork 22:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can understand why you're unhappy as a result of this dispute, I think this is all the result of an unfortunate misunderstanding. Mattisse has explained to me that at the time when you were working on her case, she was having problems with her email, hence why she probably did not receive some of the emails you sent, and assumed that you had not replied. As to the sockpuppetry, I have asked Mattisse to explain that, as I wasn't aware of it. Bear in mind that CheckUser is sometimes wrong, particularly with users who have a dynamic IP address or who share a computer or internet connection. Both of you are experienced and valued editors, and I really want to clear up this dispute peacefully. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute is that Mattisse has said things about me which are untrue. If she would like to apoligise for that and amend her statements and promise not to make any more such untrue statements then I would be satisfied. SilkTork 00:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Mattisse to amend her statements. However, she's drawn my attention to this statement, in which you described her as "manipulative and exploitative", "self-obsessed", and "possibly in need of professional counselling". In the interests of peaceful dispute resolution, I think it's best if you retract those statements (which can be found in her Request for Assistance file). In exchange, Mattisse will retract her statements about you. I think more civility is needed on both sides here. Don't misunderstand me; I don't blame either of you for this situation, as the whole case was evidently rather stressful and confusing for everyone involved. But if you take the step of retracting the comments I cited above about Mattisse, then that will be an important step towards resolving this dispute. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there something about my statements that was incorrect? I don't see it. I am becoming irritated by her behavior and by your encouragement of her behavior. As her adviser you might consider cooling this matter down rather than escalating it. As her adviser I strongly recommend you suggest she simply amends her untrue statements without demanding I first change my honestly held opinions about her. I will say quite clearly and honestly that I find her irritating and petty. I will say that I don't like her. All of this is true. And, as a consequence of this prolonged discussion, the more often I will be saying these things. If she wishes me to stop saying these things then she can stop this discussion by removing the untrue statements she has made about me and by apologising for being dishonest and for hurting me. It is of course a matter of opinion if she does want this stop. I suspect she likes the attention. SilkTork 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read this statement that you reference. I'll repeat it here as it is an honest evaluation of my feelings about this experience:

"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."

That comment was prompted by this comment: "First, before I say anything else, I am speaking for myself and I am not saying anything in any official manner with my position as the Coordinator of the AMA; I am leaving my position aside for a moment and speaking as an individual. With that out of the way, I must say Matisse, that overall you have not lent yourself to be helpful with the Starwood case, your Advocate, or anyone else within the AMA that you have interacted with. On the contrary, nearly every person who has touched your case has become almost immediately frustrated with your approach, attitude and demands. In repeatedly emailing me with things such as "Every day is agony" and various descriptions of how Wikipedia is ruining your life (which I, personally, find difficult to understand) I must admit that I, as a human being, have become nothing more than flustered at times, especially when my requests (which were for your sake) to calm down, take a step back and relax were staunchly ignored, along with my suggestions for reasonable plans of action that had reasonable chances of dealing with some of these issues. Volunteers only have so much zeal. :-) Now, speaking as the Coordinator I can tell you that we did what we could at the time you were having these problems given our resources at the time. We're currently in the middle of trying our best to improve our resources and abilities, so I find your discouraging comments only a reason for us to try harder to attain these goals. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 04:17, 21 March 2007 ""

SilkTork 22:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what the lies are

Truly I do not know what you are talking about. If it is the emails, my email was being vandalised, I think because of a stupid note I left on you page using an alternate signature, headlessjeff, or something. I keep getting messages to O.K. my new email and new password with that name on it plus several people send me mail that I did not receive. Someone else got my mail for a couple of days. Ask User:WeniWidiWiki. He first warned me about it. I can give you some admin names also.

I was upset about the way you went publically collecting evidence, and so was Eugenio, who told you so. I was being vandalised by proxy IP's several times a day. It was a rough period because the sock puppet ring was being shut down and they were taking their revenge on me. Ask *Blnguyen (bananabucket), please. What are my lies?

I do not like this any more than you do. But I have not said such horrible personal things about your honesty and character as you have about me. In general, I am not a disliked person. I am not understanding your reaction but I certainly wish it would cease. I am an editor, a writer. I basically work on Feature Articles in collaboration with other people. I have no problems with anyone else. I don't want to spend my time thinking about all this. Yes, I was angry that an AMA Advocate got a sock puppet out Arbitration, but that AMA Advocate and I are friends and the things I said about that issue on the MDX page about him getting that sock puppet off, he does not hold against me.

I feel if I say anymore you will accuse me of more. What do you want me to do? I do not want you to be upset. Really I do not. I will do what you want me to do if you tell me what that is. (Maybe, to be honest I have to know what they are first.) and you would have to agree to retract the personal attacks. Sincerely, --Mattisse 00:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Reading up your page it seems it was the sock puppet thing that you considered lies. If you read the links I put in my request, you would see that issue had been dealt with in September and in the RFC/Mattisse, filed by the sock puppets, my sock puppet episode was declared "old news" and no longer relevant. I got a lot of support there. The sock puppets got none.

Also, if you read the arbitration, not just the first page where everyone spouts off, but the Workshop and Proposed decision page, you would have seen that excepting the sock puppets and Rosencomet, no one thought my short sock pupped episode was an issue now. That was very clear. So that was not a lie. I had assumed you read the relevant background, especially RFC/Mattisse. Starwood was about Rosencomet, not about me. Please understand. Please consult some persons knowledgeable about the case. It is only recently I have come to understand that AMA Advocates do no investigation and accept the superficial as the reality. Truly I did not know that then. I apologise for having unrealistic expectations. But no one has thought I had sock puppets since early fall when they were disclosed. And they were not a "ring", they did not collaborate, and even Rosencomet was mystified by their behavior. I did not realise that you would consider something long past a lie. In fact in an ANI, which I also gave a link to in my application, admins admonished Ekajaki to stop calling me a sock puppet because, as they said, it is not a scarlet letter. If you did think I was lying, why did you not ask me or confront me? I could have pointed to the right people to find out the truth. Sincerely, --Mattisse 00:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is that you asked for assistance. I offered assistance. You complained about my behaviour from the start. Sneering at my defusing approach of asking you to relax and calm down by using the metaphor of have a cup of tea. That wasn't a good start. I felt at that point that we were not compatible and suggested that you try someone else. You then insisted that I continue and help you. I needed to gather information. You objected to my asking people - you wanted to give your version of events and did not want me to consult with people outside of your chosen list. You wanted discussion to take place out of sight by email. I started to ask you questions about some of the information I had been collecting. You were not giving me straight answers, and that coupled with the evidence that you had not been straight and honest in the past led me to feel I could not trust you. I withdrew from the case and explained to you that the case was too complicated for me. You asked me to give you some more feedback. I told you that your behaviour did not encourage trust. I let the matter drop. The other day I noticed there had been a discussion on closing down the AMA. I read your comments there in which you were not supportive of AMA. That's OK - you were reporting your experiences, and you did not directly involve me. Then I read this [4] in which you say things about my involvement which were simply not true. I have indicated earlier the words i objected to. To balance the accusation for the record I gave my side of events. I was hurt that even after trying to help you that you would say that I did nothing. Why exactly would you say that? And in your attempt to disentangle yourself from that obvious lie you say that people had been messing with your email account. Anyway - I was prepared to leave it at that. You had given your side of events - an inaccurate and untrue account - and I had explained what involvement I did have, including the statement that I had given you advice about your deceptive behaviour. Deceptive behaviour that is a matter of record on Wikipedia, and which I am pleased you have acknowledged above. I mention that deceptive behaviour from the past because you were clearly engaging in more deceptive behaviour in your comments about my involvement in your case. However, you engage another advocate and ask him to explain my words. You are of course an article and intelligent person with considerable experience of Wiki. You are perfectly capable of speaking to me yourself and engaging directly in dialogue. However you ask another person to speak to me. I equate this behaviour of getting people on your side to speak for you as being similar to your past behaviour of using sockpuppets. It feels similar to me. I am pleased now that we are talking directly. Neither of us needs to go via a third person. I am sure we can work this out between us. I would like you to consider that what you have said about me is hurtful to me. I know that I have said some nasty things about you, but that has been provoked in defense of myself in the face of your statements. I have asked you to ammend what you have said and for you to apolige. You have made it a condition that I withdraw what I have said about you. What I have said has been a reaction to what you have said - therefore it is up to you to stop attacking. When you have stopped attacking I will immediately stop defending myself. It's that simple. You are stirring this up[, not I. We are both hurting at the moment. Please do the decent thing and amend your words and apoligise. SilkTork 07:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sincere and heartfelt message to SilkTork

SilkTork, I truly apologise sincerely for any pain or distress I have caused you. It was totally unintended, I assure you. I would not like to cause pain or distress for anyone, least of all you. Please forgive me for what I have done that has distressed you. And please believe I did not lie to you. For whatever reasons, we had different experiences of what happened. But I so much want to forgive and forget. (meaning both of Us). I too had a life threatening illness, so I know what that is like. I admire your forth rightness about your experience. Truly I am not your enemy and do not want to hurt or cause pain. I have admired your user page and wish I could be as forthright about my illness as you are and could reach the point to be open about it as you have. Please let us drop this as a huge misunderstanding, much of it caused by the interference of others. I do not want to be your enemy. I wish not to pursue this further in any forum and for us each to recognise each other as fallible human beings with good, but sometimes musunderstood intentons. With all sincerely and heartfelt good wishes to you, Mattisse 01:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for that. I will remove any comments you wish me to remove. This has been an experience. I have decided I do not wish to assist any further in AMA because of the high level of expectation placed on those attempting to help out. I will continue to lend assistance and support to other Wiki users, but not in such a quasi-formal manner - there is too much misunderstanding of the process. SilkTork 22:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Without commenting, I just want to check that you are aware of WP:ANI#Question about personal attacks. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am now. Thanks. That appears to be in the past and Mattisse has withdrawn the complaint. I would agree with much of Walton's summary. This entire incident has rubbed me sore. I am astonished at my own level of frustration and rage and bad manners. I have encountered a few aggressive Wiki users who have been abusive toward me, but they never quite touched me in the way that Mattisse has - mainly I suppose in all the other situations people had been complaining directly to me, rather than making remarks to others which I discover later. I much prefer if someone has a problem with me they tell me directly. Mmmmmm. I don't even want to get into it. Mattisse has given a full and generous apology, for which I am grateful. I now just want the matter to end. I have personal issues which are more important to deal with. Again, thanks for bringing that to my attention. SilkTork 23:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Truly this was a big misunderstanding and I appreciate your acceptance of my apology. I did not lie, as this sockpuppet stuff about me has been spread around so much that I assumed (wrongly) that you knew about the whole sordid affair. So thanks for just dropping this. I think we are both well meaning. I know I get emotional at times when I am stressed out here and that is not a good reaction. I am sorry. Sincerely, --Mattisse 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology. SilkTork 23:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail

email --Mattisse 12:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]