Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:
See also:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
In progress by a CheckUser as I write. – MuZemike 04:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Interim results - Confirmed
-- Avi ( talk) 06:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Accounts blocked, but I ask for clarification to the checkusers as to whom these socks belong to ("the above" is not saying enough for me). – MuZemike 08:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: All accounts (re)tagged as socks of Mattisse. – MuZemike 17:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Please note: Further review with additional checkusers has revealed that, while GetOutFrog ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki), QuattroBajeena ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Yzak Jule ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) are all socks, they are actually Confirmed socks of Zengar Zombolt ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki). The editorial behaviour of QuattroBajeena closely correlates with that of Mattisse, but it is clear this was coincidental; the editorial behaviour of the other socks does not correlate. The IP block should remain in place, as the socking behaviour is confirmed, it is just linked to a different account. Alison will log on later to confirm this finding. Apologies to our fine SPI clerks for messing up the archives. Risker ( talk) 07:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: just to clarify things here:
Spitfire Tally-ho! 23:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts#SPI for discussion of these editors and User:Laser brain/Sandbox for an in-progress overview of Mattisse's socking. The first four accounts are partly very new, but involved themselves in FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chloë Sevigny/archive1), a familiar Mattisse theme. The second two are also relatively new and have been involved with Tryptofish ( talk · contribs), a recent target of Mattisse socks. Ucucha 23:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed Ashton 29 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Chaelee ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) are socks, but not of Mattisse. Recommend that one of these accounts be indefinitely blocked, and the other blocked for a period with a very stern warning about trying to influence FAC.
Unrelated Youshotandywarhol ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki), Greenelburrito ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Muslim Wookie ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) are unrelated to each other and to the other socks, and are not socks of Mattisse. No comment on the IP. Risker ( talk) 05:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
I added A UT professor ( talk · contribs) (currently also in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaydenver). User immediately upon registering initiated an FAR, for Barack Obama, and proceeded to User talk:SandyGeorgia (interactions with this user are not unusual for Mattisse socks; cf. Charles Rodriguez ( talk · contribs)) and started to stir up trouble at the aforementioned SPI. I warned them for that and got this response, which sounds exactly like Mattisse. User is apparently editing from the listed IP [7], which does resolve to the University of Texas. Ucucha 02:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Mattisse requested me to post the following on her behalf as evidence. Ucucha 05:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ucucha,
Well, post the evidence I gave you.
- Neither I nor any of my socks have ever posted on Barack Obama.
- I have not posted on SandyGeorgia's page for at least two years. None of my sock puppets have ever posted on her page.
- I personally filed one SPI in Spring of 2007 regarding a sock of Ekajati named Jefferson Anderson, and that is the only one I have filed. None of my sock puppets have ever filed a SPI.
- None of my sock puppets has ever filed a FAR. I have not done so for at lease a year and probably\ two years..
So to say this behavior is characteristic of my or my socks is wildly off base. Where do you get the idea that this is characteristic of me or my socks that you can cite it as "evidence"? Usually, editors filing SPIs are required to file precise diffs supporting their case. The sloppiness of the current filings is shocking. That a purported sock pupped attacked Malleus is enough to condemn me? Even Risker said on her talk page that this is ridiculous and noted that the Malleus" article that was apparently nominated for ADF had been posted in many forums as problematic.
By the way, neither I nor any of my sock puppets have participated in ADFs since 2006.
- The purported sock puppet the UT professor is in Wisconsin, according to the WHOIS filed on the SPI page. I have, at the same time, been accused of being in Arizona (the five socks wrongly attributed to me) , with some hints that I am in Oregon. I am in none of those locations, as the Check user should clearly show. The fact that Check user is coming up with inaccurate results is profoundly disturbing. Prior sock puppet investigations located me accurately, so I am wondering what is going on now.
This is turning into a blood bath where any editor or IP falling under any kind of suspicious is immediately routed to a Mattisse Check user. Do you understand that I am blocked? I cannot creat new accounts. Several of the socks attributed to me have not edited since February, so they would have been caught in my prior blocks. They are obviously not socks of mine, so these accusations, and more upsetting, the positive Check user results, are quite upsetting. I think Check user is corrupt and subject to political influence.
Risker says that she is looking into this problem of inaccuracy in the Check user results. She appears to recognize that there is a problem in the current findings. I think it would help if those filing the complaints were conscientious in providing, tightly researched evidence, instead of relying on the wildly inaccurate "evidence" on Laser brain's user page.
For example, I have never edited "Crucifixion in art" nor has any of my socks. The editor Truefish is completely unknown to me, so to have that editor listed as one of the editors I routinely attack is wrong.
Do you wonder that I am not clearing the backlog of DYKs as I used to?
Kindest regards,
Mattisse
Does seem to be a British theme to the edits, some of the comments indicate someone well immersed in UK culture.-- Salix ( talk): 22:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Mattisse submitted Robert A. Heinlein to FAR on November 11. [8] [9] Less than 24 hours later, after a disagreement at Augustan literature (and because the FAR instructions permit only one nomination at a time), she withdrew and deleted the Heinlein FAR to submit Wikipedia:Featured article review/Augustan literature/archive1 instead. ( background from talk page.)
Checkuser comment: Jttw ( talk · contribs) is clearly a British editor with an interest in Labour party politics. A UT professor ( talk · contribs) is clearly focused on the Barack Obama article; his interactions with SandyGeorgia started on the FAR page he initiated when she responded there. He is appropriately listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaydenver, and another checkuser will review that case. Please see my note on the archived results that include QuattroBajeena ( talk · contribs): further review has confirmed that socks attributed previously to Mattisse are actually socks of another account. Charles Rodriguez ( talk · contribs) is confirmed to be Mattisse. I believe that clears up all of the questions about accounts that someone felt might be Mattisse. Risker ( talk) 07:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Clerk declined and close, per Risker. Spitfire Tally-ho! 23:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
The user ( User:Loopy48) claims s/he is not a sockpuppet of User:Mattisse Tyw7 ( ☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
It is alleged that user BarkingMoon is actually blocked user Mattisse. User SandyGeorgia has posted the following diffs that she believes makes it clear that BarkingMoon is Mattisse. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Another user has posted his belief that BarkingMoon is Rlevse, retired under dubious circumstances. As past experience shows that any unresolved allegations of socking will be trotted out when Mattisse asks for reinstatement, but by then matters will be stale, it seems most fair to have this resolved up front. Wehwalt ( talk) 08:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
@Steven Zhang. I am asking for a CU to be run regarding Mattisse and BarkingMoon. Checkusers may also wish to inquire regarding Rlevse, but that is not my principal concern. If I filled out the form wrong, please advise me as to what to change.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I fail to see why this SPI is being carried out. The editor is not socking as it is impossible to sock from a vanished account. The editor is not in breach of *any* policies, as far as I can determine. If there are concerns with behaviour involving commenting on other users, it should be taken to AN/I. While I admire the detective work - and it does appear thorough - nobody here has any right to know if a vanished user who was not under any sanctions, etc, has returned. -- HighKing ( talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
In BarkingMoon's first ever edit session they posted at ANI against Damian - diff "If this is a repeat problem for Damiens.rf, ie, if he has a repeated history of causing problems, then he should be stopped" . - ChildofMidnight expressed Rlevse's stance againt Damian very well in this diff - "This is an outrageous block. Rlevse and Jehochman come and bully someone they disagree with on content issues, blocking them indefinitely without attempting any dispute resolution" - it's very telling for the onging edit patterns and against all new identity return conditions to continue on with previous issues/disputes. - Off2riorob ( talk) 19:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask that arbcom authorize a clerk to state that it is not Mattisse? I don't mean to play twenty questions, the purpose of my initiating this was to rule out Mattisse. If that is possible, I'd like to know and then you guys can go on looking under rocks to your heart's content. (no offense, some people like what's under rocks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I have been very patient waiting for a decision on this, but now my patience is becoming exhausted. If whoever this person is had not wilfully and rather stupidly brought himself to my attention, no one would have noticed him. I don't much care if it's Rlevse, Matisse or the Devil incarnate, and if they behave themselves I see no reason to ban to them further. However, we do have a right to know – who we are dealing with. So I see no reason for further delay – what is going on here? Giacomo ( talk) 19:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment – I don't know if anyone saw this earlier, but [24] and [25] by some unrelated IP seem suspect, but I can't make anything out of this. – MuZemike 21:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
(they are all "weak" but explaining the gestalt.)
FYI: I am not Wiki sock hunting (or even Mattisse) knowledgable and really prefer to never be at places like here or ANI. I have not seen the accounts editing destructively and normally would not care if someone socked back in constructively. But I have a suspicion and need to put it forward to have clear conscious given Mattisse claims not to be using socks and is asking for a return. I REALLY want to be proved wrong, admit idiocy, and never come here again. TCO ( reviews needed) 22:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Clarification: Mattisse has not asked for a return. I should have said, "planning on one". Or. Something. My bad. This whole place still gives me the willies. TCO ( reviews needed) 01:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I really recommend running this in the clear. The finkyness this site has had with un-needed Arbcom submissions has been bad news. Risker estimated significant amounts of communications they get could be done on wiki. No need to act super secret. Just run the test and let the chips fall. Same as Wehwalt's last request. TCO ( reviews needed) 22:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
@MuZemike, all I did was delete the IP address. I did not use my tools in any way. The IP address can be ascertained by anyone, admin or no, from the history. No chance of evading a checkuser or anything like that. I will not use my tools for anything involving Mattisse, per WP:INVOLVED. Other admins must decide if it is a case for RevDel or oversight. Thanks for the concern, hope I've addressed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
@Keegan: I'm aware that the results are "plain". So what? "It's Mattisse" is not an insightful answer as to why normal processes should not be followed. Will inquire with Arbcom. TCO ( reviews needed) 05:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
(Crossposted from Mattisse's talk page) I need help to make a comment on an SPI investigation - I was told to email arbcom but I have gotten no replies from the email addresses given me and I need to clear up an SPI. The SPI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mattisse/Archive#02_January_2011 was refused and no CU was conducted yet the sockpuppet was attributed to me anyway. I was away from the computer for several weeks at the time and did not know about the SPI until later. Also User:74.97.209.127 has been labeled as a sock puppet of mine. I would like to know where the investigation is that determined that the IP from Arizona who made 1 edit is a sock of mine. Thank you. Mattisse ( talk) 19:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC) (cross posted by Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 19:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC))
If I may make some general comments (I am not going to run any CU here, and ArbCom may agree or disagree with my views). If an editor accidentally edits while logged out, then I can understand how an IP should be hidden from view; that is a reasonable claim to privacy. However, if an editor willfully edits via an IP, then then he or she may not be afforded that same claim (otherwise, many SPI cases could not be filed because many of them involve block evasion or other forms of deception via IPs). I say may not instead of should not because there are other instances why it may not be a good idea to keep them in the open. Please note that I have moved the previous 3 comments to the above section to keep this clear for clerks/CUs. – MuZemike 23:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's set something straight here: running a check and posting on this page results in "Confirmed", "Likely", "Unlikely", or "Unrelated". There is minimal transparency in this process as we do not, as checkusers, reveal private data or how the technical details string together. We do not confirm the method used (generally)- our response is as vague as ArbCom. So, as a checkuser, like Hersfold I would run the check and send it to AC without much reply here, because replying here is as fruitless if confirmed or likely. When processing a request like Matisse, it will end up in the AC's hands no matter the result. So we should skip the middle man and move on with that. If Matisse is socking, it will be handled. If not, it will be handled. Either way it will be through the proper channel without closed door conspiracy but instead technical data and behavioral evidence that cannot be divulged anyway. Less drahmah. Keegan ( talk) 05:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Logging this for posterity. NW ( Talk) 22:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Another checkuser and I have independently Confirmed this. Blocking now. NW ( Talk) 22:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
RetroLord's account was created two weeks after the last post of previous Mattisse sock User:MathewTownsend. Like some Mattisse socks, RL began with hundreds of edits tagging articles en masse--500 tags in 24 hours time (see contributions). RL also, perhaps a bit ostenatiously, made the point that they were a new editor with their sixth edit [26] (another behavior documented at the Mattisse page). After 3 days, RL began to speedily review numbers of GA nominations, with a particular interest in politics, both Mattisse tendencies; like the MathewTownsend account, RL has shown a particular interest in review drives, reassessment drives, and other GA-related competition. (e.g. [27], [28]). RL has also shown a similar sensitivity to criticism/victim mentality to that of previous Mattisse accounts (e.g., [29]). Lastly, RL has made most of their recent edits to Wikipedia space pages (see contributions), sparking drama with many users, again a Mattisse tendency.
I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Mattisse to see if any users more familiar with Mattisse's behavior want to take a look, too. I should add as a closing note that despite all the drama that the account is contributing lately, I rather like RetroLord, and I'd be happy if there was some way I could be conclusively proven wrong here. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 21:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Khazar2 ( talk) 21:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
As I've had past interactions with Retrolord, and am also involved in the GA process, I'm stepping back from this one as a clerk. Quite frankly, though I was not active in the GA process at the time Mattisse was active, I found the personality shift between Mattisse and MatthewTownsend quite jarring, but given the interest in GA and disruption in meta areas I can in hindsight see the connection. I see a similar personality shift that would be required here in order for these two users to be connected, but I suppose that it is possible, considering that both frequent the GA process and have caused disruption elsewhere. -- Rs chen 7754 21:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Note: This user has been indef'd on an unrelated matter and is unable to comment here. Dusti *Let's talk!* 22:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to discuss my reasons publicly, but behaviorally speaking, I do not believe this is Mattisse. I doubt that Retro was a new user when he joined this last January, but without knowing which master to compare him too, the account is far too old for checkuser to be of much use. Someguy1221 ( talk) 23:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Someguy and myself both came to the same conclusion, based upon the same reason, which was quite compelling. I am quite sure he's related to someone, but again, due to the age of the account somebody would need to figure out a behavioral connection between this user and whoever he would be related to. NativeForeigner Talk 23:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I too have had previous interaction with Retrolord and will recuse myself as a clerk. What I will say is, despite not being and expert on Mattisse's behaviour, my gut feeling is this isn't him. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 23:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
As Retrolord is unable to post his comments here, I will add them from his talk page: – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
A brief look at Retrolord's user page shows a big military history bias, this was not a topic Mattisse was big on.-- Salix ( talk): 08:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Procedural investigation: I am merely logging this new Mattisse sock for future reference. AGK [•] 17:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Procedural investigation: I am merely logging this new Mattisse sock for future reference. AGK [•] 19:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
General:
Many of these are obscure articles in Mattisse's areas of interest. Examining the edits within these articles reveals the pattern of edits described at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mattisse (for example, tagging at Selective perception [33] [34]).
EC has also edited in the listed areas of interest detailed on the LTA page for Mattisse socks. As but a few samples, her first edit was in geology [35], within a month at India [36] and also [37], and not long before she was at psych articles and medicine [38] [39], and Venezuela [40].
In addition to the pot stirring surrounding various other arb cases:
Like Mattisse, at the least and most trivial challenge to her authority, (sample of past documented debacles at GA for example) EC switches from constructive and collaborative editing to tag-bombing and accusatory mode: [47] [48] [49] [50] Like Mattisse, EC is capable of decent content work, but that work deteriorates when she is challenged.
A classic example of this is seen at Open defecation, where a minor disagreement over citations in the lead (both parties were partially right and both were partially wrong), leads to the "I am picking up my marbles and going home" behavior, with accusations of article ownership and article tagging. EC was constructively editing until she had a trivial disagreement with EvM-Susana. [51] When she is challenged, she responds with classic Mattisse behavior, and her previous constructive editing switches to tag-bombing.
Like Mattisse, EC involves herself in DR in ways that furthers rather than helps resolve issues, because she not infrequently does not understand the issues. [52] Flyer22 can speak more to that incident.
Other behaviors documented by TParis at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell/Archive
Should a CU indicate that EChastain is Mattisse, I am indifferent as to whether she should be blocked. Since Mattisse just registers a new account and keeps doing the same thing, it might be easier if she is left to edit under a known account, where others can keep an eye on her, and she can be asked to refrain from stirring the pot. On the other hand, if she is blocked, her reincarnations are not usually difficult to spot. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:
See also:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
In progress by a CheckUser as I write. – MuZemike 04:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Interim results - Confirmed
-- Avi ( talk) 06:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Accounts blocked, but I ask for clarification to the checkusers as to whom these socks belong to ("the above" is not saying enough for me). – MuZemike 08:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: All accounts (re)tagged as socks of Mattisse. – MuZemike 17:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Please note: Further review with additional checkusers has revealed that, while GetOutFrog ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki), QuattroBajeena ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Yzak Jule ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) are all socks, they are actually Confirmed socks of Zengar Zombolt ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki). The editorial behaviour of QuattroBajeena closely correlates with that of Mattisse, but it is clear this was coincidental; the editorial behaviour of the other socks does not correlate. The IP block should remain in place, as the socking behaviour is confirmed, it is just linked to a different account. Alison will log on later to confirm this finding. Apologies to our fine SPI clerks for messing up the archives. Risker ( talk) 07:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: just to clarify things here:
Spitfire Tally-ho! 23:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts#SPI for discussion of these editors and User:Laser brain/Sandbox for an in-progress overview of Mattisse's socking. The first four accounts are partly very new, but involved themselves in FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chloë Sevigny/archive1), a familiar Mattisse theme. The second two are also relatively new and have been involved with Tryptofish ( talk · contribs), a recent target of Mattisse socks. Ucucha 23:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed Ashton 29 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Chaelee ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) are socks, but not of Mattisse. Recommend that one of these accounts be indefinitely blocked, and the other blocked for a period with a very stern warning about trying to influence FAC.
Unrelated Youshotandywarhol ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki), Greenelburrito ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Muslim Wookie ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) are unrelated to each other and to the other socks, and are not socks of Mattisse. No comment on the IP. Risker ( talk) 05:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
I added A UT professor ( talk · contribs) (currently also in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaydenver). User immediately upon registering initiated an FAR, for Barack Obama, and proceeded to User talk:SandyGeorgia (interactions with this user are not unusual for Mattisse socks; cf. Charles Rodriguez ( talk · contribs)) and started to stir up trouble at the aforementioned SPI. I warned them for that and got this response, which sounds exactly like Mattisse. User is apparently editing from the listed IP [7], which does resolve to the University of Texas. Ucucha 02:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Mattisse requested me to post the following on her behalf as evidence. Ucucha 05:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ucucha,
Well, post the evidence I gave you.
- Neither I nor any of my socks have ever posted on Barack Obama.
- I have not posted on SandyGeorgia's page for at least two years. None of my sock puppets have ever posted on her page.
- I personally filed one SPI in Spring of 2007 regarding a sock of Ekajati named Jefferson Anderson, and that is the only one I have filed. None of my sock puppets have ever filed a SPI.
- None of my sock puppets has ever filed a FAR. I have not done so for at lease a year and probably\ two years..
So to say this behavior is characteristic of my or my socks is wildly off base. Where do you get the idea that this is characteristic of me or my socks that you can cite it as "evidence"? Usually, editors filing SPIs are required to file precise diffs supporting their case. The sloppiness of the current filings is shocking. That a purported sock pupped attacked Malleus is enough to condemn me? Even Risker said on her talk page that this is ridiculous and noted that the Malleus" article that was apparently nominated for ADF had been posted in many forums as problematic.
By the way, neither I nor any of my sock puppets have participated in ADFs since 2006.
- The purported sock puppet the UT professor is in Wisconsin, according to the WHOIS filed on the SPI page. I have, at the same time, been accused of being in Arizona (the five socks wrongly attributed to me) , with some hints that I am in Oregon. I am in none of those locations, as the Check user should clearly show. The fact that Check user is coming up with inaccurate results is profoundly disturbing. Prior sock puppet investigations located me accurately, so I am wondering what is going on now.
This is turning into a blood bath where any editor or IP falling under any kind of suspicious is immediately routed to a Mattisse Check user. Do you understand that I am blocked? I cannot creat new accounts. Several of the socks attributed to me have not edited since February, so they would have been caught in my prior blocks. They are obviously not socks of mine, so these accusations, and more upsetting, the positive Check user results, are quite upsetting. I think Check user is corrupt and subject to political influence.
Risker says that she is looking into this problem of inaccuracy in the Check user results. She appears to recognize that there is a problem in the current findings. I think it would help if those filing the complaints were conscientious in providing, tightly researched evidence, instead of relying on the wildly inaccurate "evidence" on Laser brain's user page.
For example, I have never edited "Crucifixion in art" nor has any of my socks. The editor Truefish is completely unknown to me, so to have that editor listed as one of the editors I routinely attack is wrong.
Do you wonder that I am not clearing the backlog of DYKs as I used to?
Kindest regards,
Mattisse
Does seem to be a British theme to the edits, some of the comments indicate someone well immersed in UK culture.-- Salix ( talk): 22:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Mattisse submitted Robert A. Heinlein to FAR on November 11. [8] [9] Less than 24 hours later, after a disagreement at Augustan literature (and because the FAR instructions permit only one nomination at a time), she withdrew and deleted the Heinlein FAR to submit Wikipedia:Featured article review/Augustan literature/archive1 instead. ( background from talk page.)
Checkuser comment: Jttw ( talk · contribs) is clearly a British editor with an interest in Labour party politics. A UT professor ( talk · contribs) is clearly focused on the Barack Obama article; his interactions with SandyGeorgia started on the FAR page he initiated when she responded there. He is appropriately listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaydenver, and another checkuser will review that case. Please see my note on the archived results that include QuattroBajeena ( talk · contribs): further review has confirmed that socks attributed previously to Mattisse are actually socks of another account. Charles Rodriguez ( talk · contribs) is confirmed to be Mattisse. I believe that clears up all of the questions about accounts that someone felt might be Mattisse. Risker ( talk) 07:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Clerk declined and close, per Risker. Spitfire Tally-ho! 23:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
The user ( User:Loopy48) claims s/he is not a sockpuppet of User:Mattisse Tyw7 ( ☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
It is alleged that user BarkingMoon is actually blocked user Mattisse. User SandyGeorgia has posted the following diffs that she believes makes it clear that BarkingMoon is Mattisse. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Another user has posted his belief that BarkingMoon is Rlevse, retired under dubious circumstances. As past experience shows that any unresolved allegations of socking will be trotted out when Mattisse asks for reinstatement, but by then matters will be stale, it seems most fair to have this resolved up front. Wehwalt ( talk) 08:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
@Steven Zhang. I am asking for a CU to be run regarding Mattisse and BarkingMoon. Checkusers may also wish to inquire regarding Rlevse, but that is not my principal concern. If I filled out the form wrong, please advise me as to what to change.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I fail to see why this SPI is being carried out. The editor is not socking as it is impossible to sock from a vanished account. The editor is not in breach of *any* policies, as far as I can determine. If there are concerns with behaviour involving commenting on other users, it should be taken to AN/I. While I admire the detective work - and it does appear thorough - nobody here has any right to know if a vanished user who was not under any sanctions, etc, has returned. -- HighKing ( talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
In BarkingMoon's first ever edit session they posted at ANI against Damian - diff "If this is a repeat problem for Damiens.rf, ie, if he has a repeated history of causing problems, then he should be stopped" . - ChildofMidnight expressed Rlevse's stance againt Damian very well in this diff - "This is an outrageous block. Rlevse and Jehochman come and bully someone they disagree with on content issues, blocking them indefinitely without attempting any dispute resolution" - it's very telling for the onging edit patterns and against all new identity return conditions to continue on with previous issues/disputes. - Off2riorob ( talk) 19:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask that arbcom authorize a clerk to state that it is not Mattisse? I don't mean to play twenty questions, the purpose of my initiating this was to rule out Mattisse. If that is possible, I'd like to know and then you guys can go on looking under rocks to your heart's content. (no offense, some people like what's under rocks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I have been very patient waiting for a decision on this, but now my patience is becoming exhausted. If whoever this person is had not wilfully and rather stupidly brought himself to my attention, no one would have noticed him. I don't much care if it's Rlevse, Matisse or the Devil incarnate, and if they behave themselves I see no reason to ban to them further. However, we do have a right to know – who we are dealing with. So I see no reason for further delay – what is going on here? Giacomo ( talk) 19:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment – I don't know if anyone saw this earlier, but [24] and [25] by some unrelated IP seem suspect, but I can't make anything out of this. – MuZemike 21:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
(they are all "weak" but explaining the gestalt.)
FYI: I am not Wiki sock hunting (or even Mattisse) knowledgable and really prefer to never be at places like here or ANI. I have not seen the accounts editing destructively and normally would not care if someone socked back in constructively. But I have a suspicion and need to put it forward to have clear conscious given Mattisse claims not to be using socks and is asking for a return. I REALLY want to be proved wrong, admit idiocy, and never come here again. TCO ( reviews needed) 22:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Clarification: Mattisse has not asked for a return. I should have said, "planning on one". Or. Something. My bad. This whole place still gives me the willies. TCO ( reviews needed) 01:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I really recommend running this in the clear. The finkyness this site has had with un-needed Arbcom submissions has been bad news. Risker estimated significant amounts of communications they get could be done on wiki. No need to act super secret. Just run the test and let the chips fall. Same as Wehwalt's last request. TCO ( reviews needed) 22:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
@MuZemike, all I did was delete the IP address. I did not use my tools in any way. The IP address can be ascertained by anyone, admin or no, from the history. No chance of evading a checkuser or anything like that. I will not use my tools for anything involving Mattisse, per WP:INVOLVED. Other admins must decide if it is a case for RevDel or oversight. Thanks for the concern, hope I've addressed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
@Keegan: I'm aware that the results are "plain". So what? "It's Mattisse" is not an insightful answer as to why normal processes should not be followed. Will inquire with Arbcom. TCO ( reviews needed) 05:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
(Crossposted from Mattisse's talk page) I need help to make a comment on an SPI investigation - I was told to email arbcom but I have gotten no replies from the email addresses given me and I need to clear up an SPI. The SPI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mattisse/Archive#02_January_2011 was refused and no CU was conducted yet the sockpuppet was attributed to me anyway. I was away from the computer for several weeks at the time and did not know about the SPI until later. Also User:74.97.209.127 has been labeled as a sock puppet of mine. I would like to know where the investigation is that determined that the IP from Arizona who made 1 edit is a sock of mine. Thank you. Mattisse ( talk) 19:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC) (cross posted by Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 19:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC))
If I may make some general comments (I am not going to run any CU here, and ArbCom may agree or disagree with my views). If an editor accidentally edits while logged out, then I can understand how an IP should be hidden from view; that is a reasonable claim to privacy. However, if an editor willfully edits via an IP, then then he or she may not be afforded that same claim (otherwise, many SPI cases could not be filed because many of them involve block evasion or other forms of deception via IPs). I say may not instead of should not because there are other instances why it may not be a good idea to keep them in the open. Please note that I have moved the previous 3 comments to the above section to keep this clear for clerks/CUs. – MuZemike 23:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's set something straight here: running a check and posting on this page results in "Confirmed", "Likely", "Unlikely", or "Unrelated". There is minimal transparency in this process as we do not, as checkusers, reveal private data or how the technical details string together. We do not confirm the method used (generally)- our response is as vague as ArbCom. So, as a checkuser, like Hersfold I would run the check and send it to AC without much reply here, because replying here is as fruitless if confirmed or likely. When processing a request like Matisse, it will end up in the AC's hands no matter the result. So we should skip the middle man and move on with that. If Matisse is socking, it will be handled. If not, it will be handled. Either way it will be through the proper channel without closed door conspiracy but instead technical data and behavioral evidence that cannot be divulged anyway. Less drahmah. Keegan ( talk) 05:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Logging this for posterity. NW ( Talk) 22:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Another checkuser and I have independently Confirmed this. Blocking now. NW ( Talk) 22:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
RetroLord's account was created two weeks after the last post of previous Mattisse sock User:MathewTownsend. Like some Mattisse socks, RL began with hundreds of edits tagging articles en masse--500 tags in 24 hours time (see contributions). RL also, perhaps a bit ostenatiously, made the point that they were a new editor with their sixth edit [26] (another behavior documented at the Mattisse page). After 3 days, RL began to speedily review numbers of GA nominations, with a particular interest in politics, both Mattisse tendencies; like the MathewTownsend account, RL has shown a particular interest in review drives, reassessment drives, and other GA-related competition. (e.g. [27], [28]). RL has also shown a similar sensitivity to criticism/victim mentality to that of previous Mattisse accounts (e.g., [29]). Lastly, RL has made most of their recent edits to Wikipedia space pages (see contributions), sparking drama with many users, again a Mattisse tendency.
I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Mattisse to see if any users more familiar with Mattisse's behavior want to take a look, too. I should add as a closing note that despite all the drama that the account is contributing lately, I rather like RetroLord, and I'd be happy if there was some way I could be conclusively proven wrong here. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 21:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Khazar2 ( talk) 21:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
As I've had past interactions with Retrolord, and am also involved in the GA process, I'm stepping back from this one as a clerk. Quite frankly, though I was not active in the GA process at the time Mattisse was active, I found the personality shift between Mattisse and MatthewTownsend quite jarring, but given the interest in GA and disruption in meta areas I can in hindsight see the connection. I see a similar personality shift that would be required here in order for these two users to be connected, but I suppose that it is possible, considering that both frequent the GA process and have caused disruption elsewhere. -- Rs chen 7754 21:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Note: This user has been indef'd on an unrelated matter and is unable to comment here. Dusti *Let's talk!* 22:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to discuss my reasons publicly, but behaviorally speaking, I do not believe this is Mattisse. I doubt that Retro was a new user when he joined this last January, but without knowing which master to compare him too, the account is far too old for checkuser to be of much use. Someguy1221 ( talk) 23:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Someguy and myself both came to the same conclusion, based upon the same reason, which was quite compelling. I am quite sure he's related to someone, but again, due to the age of the account somebody would need to figure out a behavioral connection between this user and whoever he would be related to. NativeForeigner Talk 23:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I too have had previous interaction with Retrolord and will recuse myself as a clerk. What I will say is, despite not being and expert on Mattisse's behaviour, my gut feeling is this isn't him. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 23:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
As Retrolord is unable to post his comments here, I will add them from his talk page: – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
A brief look at Retrolord's user page shows a big military history bias, this was not a topic Mattisse was big on.-- Salix ( talk): 08:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Procedural investigation: I am merely logging this new Mattisse sock for future reference. AGK [•] 17:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Procedural investigation: I am merely logging this new Mattisse sock for future reference. AGK [•] 19:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
General:
Many of these are obscure articles in Mattisse's areas of interest. Examining the edits within these articles reveals the pattern of edits described at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mattisse (for example, tagging at Selective perception [33] [34]).
EC has also edited in the listed areas of interest detailed on the LTA page for Mattisse socks. As but a few samples, her first edit was in geology [35], within a month at India [36] and also [37], and not long before she was at psych articles and medicine [38] [39], and Venezuela [40].
In addition to the pot stirring surrounding various other arb cases:
Like Mattisse, at the least and most trivial challenge to her authority, (sample of past documented debacles at GA for example) EC switches from constructive and collaborative editing to tag-bombing and accusatory mode: [47] [48] [49] [50] Like Mattisse, EC is capable of decent content work, but that work deteriorates when she is challenged.
A classic example of this is seen at Open defecation, where a minor disagreement over citations in the lead (both parties were partially right and both were partially wrong), leads to the "I am picking up my marbles and going home" behavior, with accusations of article ownership and article tagging. EC was constructively editing until she had a trivial disagreement with EvM-Susana. [51] When she is challenged, she responds with classic Mattisse behavior, and her previous constructive editing switches to tag-bombing.
Like Mattisse, EC involves herself in DR in ways that furthers rather than helps resolve issues, because she not infrequently does not understand the issues. [52] Flyer22 can speak more to that incident.
Other behaviors documented by TParis at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell/Archive
Should a CU indicate that EChastain is Mattisse, I am indifferent as to whether she should be blocked. Since Mattisse just registers a new account and keeps doing the same thing, it might be easier if she is left to edit under a known account, where others can keep an eye on her, and she can be asked to refrain from stirring the pot. On the other hand, if she is blocked, her reincarnations are not usually difficult to spot. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.