User talk:Warlordjohncarter~enwiki/Archive Jul 2009

WPAGS template
Hello, perphaps you could have a look at the WPAGS template now? Berig and Bloodofox chimed in, so there's no problem. If there's anything I can do to help, just leave me a note. Unfortunately I am helpless when it comes to advanced templates. –Holt (T•C) 08:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hi. It looks as though you're the most recent administrator to edit Southern Nazarene University. I know it was just re-categorizing but I'm confused about how to approach this even after reading Wikipedia articles on personal attacks, dispute, resolution, et cetera. There's a silly discussion going on at the SNU article about colors. I'm mostly concerned about WP:V in my editing but it looks like one editor doesn't like that. It also looks like the editor favors WP:OR and I'm finally tired of what feels like personal attacks to boot. My concerns: The whole "I'm going to write this now and strike it out at the same time" thing seems pretty snarky, too. Not quite sure what to do. I've asked for third opinions from other editors before., and I try to reach consensus but I'm really tired of ad hominem stuff, which doesn't seem to stop, and I don't want to just not edit because it's too much trouble to use reliable, third-party sources while other editors don't think this encyclopedia needs them. I know that the editor has a personal connection to SNU at least, and so I can understand the POV. I think we all do that to some extent. But it seems like he/she is trying to get me to admit things about my personal identity (see the "Maybe" point above) and I feel like most of this desire to eschew RS arises from that POV. I don't know what to do! I hope this doesn't come back to bite me in the ass. I don't want to leave Wikipedia forever all because of this ridiculousness. King of the Arverni (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's been shouting (all caps) on my talk page..
 * And elsewhere in edit summaries.
 * I've been accused of WP:OWN regarding Church of the Nazarene-related articles. I don't think that editing articles and paying attention to VERIFY constitutes OWN.
 * Sure, I do edit those articles a lot, but I also edit various others.
 * Some questions and comments have been ignored as long as the status quo is kept.
 * Some proposals have gone ignored and challenged only upon re-proposal.
 * Maybe they're not attempts at outing (some sound like it to me), but there's a lot of commenting on the contributor.
 * The editor edits his/her own comments after there's been a response.
 * Editor has marked major edits marked as minor at least once, though I seem to recall other instances.
 * Misleading edit summaries. This one was in the middle of a content dispute about the distance from a university to a city -- the source used at the time said 15, but the editor wanted to say 20 and made this edit (without changing the source) during out our dispute while only referring to the architecture issue in the summary.
 * I'm often asked to WP:AGF. As in, the reason for "WP:AAGF".
 * I want to disclose that I asked a personal question at one point but I don't see how that would be a problem in light of what this had already established.... Anyway, I'd really appreciate some advice. King of the Arverni (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed Agriculture articles
Hello - I am trying to reduce the number of articles within this category. However, I see you have a copy of the WPFarm template in your user space. I tried added the noinclude tages to your page. However, it did not seem work as I had expected. Do you have an idea on how we can delist your page from this category? Regards,  Blind Eagle  talk ~ contribs  17:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and an invitation
Thanks for submitting that proposal to the Arbitration. I invite you to add it to my proposed plan User talk:Mattisse/Plan and also to add any other comments or suggestions you may have. I am gratified. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 15:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am composing my plan here: User:Mattisse/Plan. I would appreciate it if you would read it and make suggestions or changes. Are you still willing to be one of my mentors/advisors? Do you have any idea of how a plan monitoring my behavior would work? Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 22:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that another ArbCom member voted and abstained from all of the proposed remedies, so nothing has a majority. What happens now? Am I in limbo? Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not a bot
It seems bots are out of fashion and wherever I go I find bloody projects with almost all their categories untagged - how do we get wikipedia project members interested in making their projects more manageable? SatuSuro 00:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - I thought the default categories (ie using the project name only inside the talk pages) would surely be of some use within the categories that they are caught as a good means of project management (I am familiar with Australia, New Zealand and Indonesia mainly) - at least when they are tagged - you can see visually the range of categories caught - a good visual check may not be much to some people - but it seems to be a good idea (unless I can hear a good argument against?) SatuSuro 00:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am finding that most category default modes are useful to see how the template had been tweaked - and it has been useful - in the ideal world if every active project had even just one enthusiast for cat tagging - one would only dream ... SatuSuro 00:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

project tags
If a University has a denominational project tag, should it have the Christianity one too? Moonraker0022 (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been adding University tags, and noticed mostly the Lutheran related Universities and Colleges. Here is an example Bethany College (Lindsborg, Kansas). Has state, and University and Lutheran tags not Christianity. I noticed a lot of schools say "supported by the Nazarene movement" or similar. Again mostly Lutheran just have there own. Moonraker0022 (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Isle of Man articles missing coordinates
I believe that you are interested in articles about the Isle of Man, so I hope the following might be useful. I've added a new hidden category, Category:Isle of Man articles missing geocoordinate data, which lists articles which need to be geocoded: see WP:GEOCODE for more information on how to add these coordinates. Articles can be added to this category using the template tag ; when you have geocoded an article, you should then remove the tag. -- The Anome (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Malay Theory
John, someone deleted the Malay Theory article that we have been discussing. I didn't get a copy of the Malay Theory work so far. Is there a way to get a copy so I can add the info to the other locations you mention? Reds0xfan (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, as noted the theory as it stands is nonnotable. However, the other older discredited theory is. There were comments on the AfD discussion to the effect that there were, basically, too many articles with substantive content on this theory. Would it be acceptable to you to, eventually, remove the bulk of the content from the other articles and instead provide a link to the new article on the Malay theories? If yes, I probably could copy out the information and maybe move it to a user subpage for you, something like User:RedsOxfan/Malay theory for instance, to develop the article with content regarding the other theory until the article would be likely to survive another AfD. Would that be acceptable to you? John Carter (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, John, that would be a great help. (And there is a ZERO, not the letter "O" in my username.) Thanks for your help. Reds0xfan (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany
Hi John, would you support a revert once the article becomes editable again, or do you have any other bright ideas or advice on how to deal with this type of situation? I am not hopeful that reasoning with the editor will lead anywhere any time soon.  JN 466  16:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello John – Greetings, and thanks so much for continuing to include me in the distribution list of the Christianity Wiki Project. I am aware that I haven't really done anything to help the cause, obsessed as I am with completing my own little projects which have included small contributions to articles on many Christian abolitionists, and seeing William Wilberforce through to FA. I am currently trying to improve on bishop Beilby Porteus, who is close to my heart. I am with you guys in spirit and would really love to be able to give more time and attention to Christian subjects. Give it a couple more years and I will be retired, and may then be able to spend more time on the job – although some people tell me that they are more busy in retirement than they were before! Anyway, good to make contact and keep up the good work! Cheers, Bruce Agendum (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Something
Hi again, John. I know this is nothing to do with you, but I need an experienced user who knows about stuff. On the category, (sorry, don't know what elese to do there) there is a couple of cases of two entirely different articles about the same guy. Namely A. Barton Hepburn and Alonzo Barton Hepburn, and Henry May Dawes and Henry M. Dawes. It's because somebody (can't remember the username) made stubs on all the comptrollers of the currency using a public domain source, added them to the category, but there were already a couple of existing articles. The original ones are pretty badly written, and are unreferenced, while the new ones are good, but short. I don't know if I should attempt to merge them, or nominate one for deletion (probably the unreferenced one), or just leave it and hope someone else will fix it. I notified the creator of the new articles (those are the ones with initials), but I'm not sure if s/he just decided to make the stubs and leave wikipedia. Spongefrog (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

THe user who made the new articles is called User:Hubbardbk (sorry, no time to elaborate on link, too busy). Spongefrog (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll attempt to do that now. Spongefrog (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done it. Hopefully I've done it right. (I know this doesn't really warrant a whole message but I felt like I had forgotten to do something). Spongefrog (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

HI. Again, this doesn't warrent a message, but its such a coincidence I have to tell someone. I was just blocked because some vandal had the same IP as me and I got blocked too. I only found out when I tried to undo vandalism to Stormbreaker (novel). Then you had already reverted it. I've just been unblocked by someone so I'm on a wikipedia high, so please forgive me If you feel this message shouldn't be here. To make up for it I'm going to correct some typos)

Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
 * All editors on Macedonia-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions and Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard (WP:ECCN), especially since there are significant problems in reaching consensus.
 * All articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned. Editors enforcing a case where a binding Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR.
 * The following users have been banned from Wikipedia : one year, one year, and six months.
 * The following users have been topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR: indefinitely, indefinitely, one year and, one year.
 * The Committee takes note that has resigned his administrator status while this case was pending, but also notes that he is desysopped as a result of the above case. ChrisO may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
 * is strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard. Because of this Future Perfect at Sunrise is subject to an editing restriction for one year, and is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.
 * Single-purpose accounts are strongly advised to edit in accordance with WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies. Diversifying one's topics of interest is also encouraged.
 * Abuse filter 119, as currently configured, logs all changes involving the word "Macedonia" but does not block any edits. The community is strongly advised to consider adding a new abuse filter criterion; any instances of changing the word "Macedonia" to "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym, not the full phrase) shall be prevented.
 * Within seven days of the closure of this case, a discussion is to be opened to consider the preferred current and historical names for the four entities known as Macedonia. The discussion will end one month after it is opened.


 * On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety  talk 21:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Help with John Moore (American Director) and Second Glance (film)
I'm not sure if you have time to help with this but as a fellow member of the Christian films task force I was wondering you could help add references or let the others on the task force know, maybe through the newsletter, about the pending deletions of John Moore (American Director) and Second Glance (film) which I believe are valuable toward Christian film. Have a great day. Invmog (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Renaming of Roman Catholic Church
The discussion currently underway at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Page rename proposal will be of interest to the Christianity WikiProject. As an obscure subpage of a talk page that many, if not most, project members are unaware of, I am concerned that this proposed renaming is not being communicated to the community for a genuine consensus.  JGHowes   talk  03:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Another question
Hi John, I'm here to bother you again. I found this article, Andrew Parr, which I think may be copyright violation of this site. It's just I can't find any indication that the site is copyrighted. I was half-way through trying to remove POV when it occurred to me that it's probably been copy-pasted from another site. If ity is copyright I'll try and re-write it in my own words and use the site as a cite (no pun intended).

P.S. If you know somewhere else I can ask my many questions (other than the helpdesk, which I often use, but is only for using wikipedia), tell me. I feel bad asking so many questions of one person. Spongefrog (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Added the copyvio speedy deletion tag. An admin should be along shortly to take care of it.  In the future, this noticeboard is a good place to start for copyright violations.  There is a noticeboard for just about everything (see the list at the top of the previous link), and even a place to just generally ask for assistance from other editors.  Hope that helps.  (Sorry for lurking John!).  Athanasius • Quicumque vult  19:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. I forgive you for stalking John. He's been uncharacteristically absent for a couple of days. Or perhaps this is characteristic, I don't know. Spongefrog (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The past few days have been a bit more hectic than usual, so I haven't been able to do as much. My thanks to the lurker. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about you in RL
First off, if you don't feel comfortable posting the answer here, just let me know and I'll shoot you an e-mail instead. My question is this: Drew Smith What I've done 07:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you ever lived in, or near, Sumter, South Carolina? I have a friend of the same name (and odd sense of humor) that lived there. I have since lost touch, and was wondering if this is you...
 * No, actually, this isn't my real name, and I think Missouri is about as far east or south (barring vacations) I've ever been. And your friend has my sympathies regarding his strange sense of humor. John Carter (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol. Ok, just wondering...Drew Smith What I've done 13:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Help with understanding sock-puppetry vs aliased/renamed users, etc
Hi John. I was led to you by your well-thought-out comment here. I've been trying hard to get the Christian conventions article stable. I made the idiotic mistake of volunteering when an editor made a plea for help on the NPOV noticeboard.

I'm pretty certain the party currently looking for ways to destabilize the article is using an alias or second Wiki-identity. XXXXX appears now to be editing as YYYYYY. In an note here, he says (Note - I had to change my ID) RSuser (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC).

Also, I have begun to notice certain similarities of language and also typography with another very active editor on this article: Tmtsoj. Although Slofstra left a note to Tmtsoj here, the 2 have no dialogs on the Christian conventions talk pages. Clark Kent disappears when Superman shows up.

Tmtsoj, RSuser,and Slofstra appear NOT to edit at the same time. Only one account is actively editing and debating at any time.

My questions:
 * 1) Does an admin have any tools available that help establish that certain accounts are or are not editing from the same IP?
 * 2) If so, can you use those tools to see if Tmtsoj RSuser and Slofstra are related?
 * 3) If so, can you see if other accounts may also be related?
 * 4) Is there any reason for concern if a single person appears to be using multiple aliases SEQUENTIALLY (i.e, not writing something then logging on under another alias to add support for those earlier edits)?

I will look for your response ON THIS PAGE. Thanks. --nemonoman (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Using multiple names is acceptable so long as the party in question does not attempt to use the names in the same discussion as "multiple votes" or voices in the same discussion. Considering the individual in question has not apparently attempted to cast more than one !vote with the names, I would say that there would, at this point, be no cause for determining if they are the same person, and there would be no basis for a sockpuppetry complaint. John Carter (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This guy, nenoman, is all over the map. Make the article stable? He should get himself stable, but I digress. I am legitimately using a new ID and I would appreciate the linkage to my actual last name being removed from this page. I had good reason to make this change, I have never used both IDs simultaneously. I am also not tmtsoj.RSuser (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

John, my concern is that we now have a single author article on Christian Conventions. This article is based entirely on amateur history work from SPS web sites and somewhat accurately cited but from unreliable sources. As an example, these anti-movement web sites have deduced that William Irvine is the founder of our movement, but no reliable source has accredited this.RSuser (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My own reading of the subject is that the movement began at the turn of the century and the intellectual contribution of John Long and Edward Cooney is as significant as that of Irvine. The only legitimate historian,, would seem to agree. RSuser (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My main problem is that I am not a historian, the authors of the web sites are not historians, and little true academic work has been done. Also, the article writer is credible and knowledgeable but I think he is doing OR and seems to have an ax to grind. Thus, I challenge such a concrete assertion as "William Irvine is the founder" on accuracy. The statement also has strong ideological overtones, and there are ideological stakes on both sides of the debate .. unfortunately. I cannot seem to get the legitimate concerns across to these individuals about the sources they are using. RSuser (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have put a request here Reliable_sources/Noticeboard on what can or cannot be used as sources. I believe that some of the assertions in the Christian Conventions article are not based on reliable sources, particularly this founder statement as worded. I find nemonoman very difficult to deal with - he is all over the map as you will see by his comments on the noticeboard.RSuser (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My own preference for an origin statement is the following, more or less: '''William Irvine and others began a ministry at the turn of the century in Ireland, later known as the "workers". About ten years later, the workers began to hold home worship meetings and convention gatherings with "friends" of the movement. In 1942*, the movement was formally registered in America as "Christian Conventions".''' (* 1942 from my memory - can check). If academic work can isolate in sharper relief the respective contributions of the other early workers, the "and others" could reasonably be either dropped or better enumerated. Thanks for your time.RSuser (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * John: thank you for your answer to my question. I'll go back now to my regular activities. So many maps to go all over, so little time! --nemonoman (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

John, thanks for taking a look at the [Christian Conventions] article. As indicated I'll go along with Melton on the founder question. I am not happy with how this entire process has gone however, and will be timing out for a period. But I will be back. I now have Nemonoman on my heels everywhere and hopefully he will reconsider his approach.RSuser (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Template
A template you created, Template:Caribbean/Categories, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the  tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Rodents
Hi, i noticed that a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far away, you were trying to merge the pocket pets workgroup and WP:WikiProject Squirrels. Well, I've proposed a new child project of WP:MAMMAL, WikiProject Rodents, over at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Rodents. If you're interested feel free to comment or add your name! --&#65279;ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Iranian translation
Know anybody who could translate Template:East Azarbaijan Province. I think I'm going to create templates by province an dlink the article son counties and main towns together. Iranian wikipedia already has templates so I think I'll lift them. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 19:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WPAGS template II
Hi, my messages seem to drown in the mass of other inquiries here. Perphaps you could have a look at the WPAGS template now? Berig and Bloodofox chimed in, so there's no problem. If there's anything I can do to help, just leave me a note. –Holt (T•C) 19:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

prophets/presidents of LDS church
Should the articles of the presidents/prophets, apostles, & general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints belong to WP Christianity? LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fraudulent contract
I'm putting this on your talk page because you're the only person who seems to be having a problem understanding the contract issue.
 * 1) A contract did exist that specified Schiffer would appear in the audience at DC's 1993 Berlin show. He would apparently discover her there and she would attend the after show reception. This was a real contract, and this was one of the contracts given to Paris Match, and the one they ran with first.
 * 2) Becker maintained that he had contracts for the rest of their relationship too. However, during his legal battles with DC, which he may have had a chance of winning (DC looks to have intimidated or bought off Necker's publisher, or so Becker alleged), he eventually came to some form of agreement with DC whereby Becker agreed to announce that the other contracts he supplied were fraudulent in some way (in what way we do not know, it may have simply been the signatures, etc). We don't really know what happened with the other contracts, whether they were in fact fraudulent, whether is was part of an agreement with DC that encompassed the book/publisher issue as well, or whatever. We simply know that as part of some sort of agreement between DC and Becker, Becker stated that the additional contracts he supplied PM, the ones covering the DC-CS relationship, were fraudulent. Please read this. It will help you understand this issue better. ► RATEL ◄ 23:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I will reply to messages left on my talk page there, not here. ► RATEL ◄ 23:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of actually looking at your page. As I already indicated, your sourcing indicates that the allegations were denied by Copperfield and Schiffer. Evidently you didn't think that was important enough to mention? The only place I expect to see any further discussion of this matter is on the article talk page. Please place any comments you wish read there. Thank you. :) John Carter (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia naming discussion
You won't be surprised to learn that I don't agree with your rationale, but thank you for taking the trouble to explain it so clearly! -- ChrisO (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * John, please note that we have been asked to state only one choice of proposal in the Macedonia discussions (see the top of the RfC pages). Unfortunately you won't be able to give a second choice. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please treat the above as a request. I am considering denouncing this poll on this and other grounds; to repeat the metaphor I'm using, this should be a discussion, not a bed of Procrustes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your note at Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen. It's a lonely article for people that don't know any of the principal actors in the related scandal (one of whom is a Wikipedia editor and an acquaintance of DarlieB), so it's always pleasant to find a new name on the talk page.

DarlieB has been warned repeatedly for this sort of behavior, but s/he is an intermittent editor, so it's also hard to keep any sort of dispute resolution on track. At the moment, I'm just not going to feed the troll, and perhaps the article will go dormant again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I made a comment there too, and am watching also. What is your opinion about redacting some of the talk p. material? I would have done so already, except I think it wiser to avoid anything drastic and --just as WhatamIdoing wisely said, hope it dies down. DGG (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of NYScholar
Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your input is requested by ArbCom
Hi John, I am deeply grateful for your input during my arbitration and have learned a great deal during the process. I have developed a plan (User:Mattisse/Plan) for which you have provided input at User talk:Mattisse/Plan.

Currently the ArbCom is in the process of rendering decision and have requested that my mentors/advisers confirm that they are aware of the plan and agree with their role in it. See Moving towards closure of the case. If you are still willing to serve as one of my mentors/advisers, and I fervently hope you are, I ask you to indicate your willingness by posting on the Proposed decision talk page.

Thank you so much. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * John, thanks for making this edit. That confirms you are willing to act as an advisor. Could you also read the plan and indicate here what you think is required of you and if you are happy with that - adding your statement to the ones added by SilkTork and Salix alba. Thanks, and apologies if you were in the process of doing that already. Carcharoth (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
 * Within 15 days of this decision, Mattisse shall, in conjunction with one or more mentors or advisers, submit to this Committee for approval a plan to govern and guide her future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers. The plan shall seek to preserve Mattisse's valuable and rewarding contributions to Wikipedia while avoiding future disputes and the types of interactions that have been hurtful for herself and others. As a starting point in developing the plan, Mattisse and her mentors or advisors should consider the suggestions made by various users on the workshop page of this case, including but not limited to Mattisse's taking wikibreaks at times of stress, avoiding or limiting Mattisse's participation on certain pages, Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users, and Mattisse's disengaging from interactions that become stressful or negative. The plan should also address how any lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan shall be addressed. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan as required by this paragraph while the proposed decision was pending. See next paragraph.)
 * User:Mattisse/Plan (version as of 24 June) is enacted as a baseline. Amendments to the plan may occur by consensus of the mentors, whereby the changes become provisional.  At the discretion of the mentors, or if there are significant objections by the community, the provisional changes will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment.
 * Should Mattisse fail to submit a satisfactory plan under remedy 1 within 15 days of this decision, she shall not edit Wikipedia until she does so, except with permission of this Committee. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan, as required by remedy 1, while the proposed decision was pending. See preceding paragraphs.)


 * On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety  talk 04:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)