Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Mattisse

Mattisse (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date March 8 2010, 00:50 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by SandyGeorgia
[edit]
  • Evidence of similar editing to Mattisse here and here (discussion with her Arb-approved advisers on her Arb Plan/Alerts page) includes targetting editors Malleus Fautorum [1] [2] and Moni3, [3] targeting a Casliber FA (Lion)—all known members of Mattisse's "plague list" from her ArbCom—familiar theme of "cabalism" and "I thought anyone can edit Wiki", a similar and complex monobook.js to Mattisse's, targeting articles at FAC (Brad Pitt), and tagging dead links and failed verification similar to Mattisse
  • Past "granny defense" [4] mentions grandchildren who may be able to create accounts for a blocked user from other locations (grandchildren would likely be highschool or college age, based on other info given, and she mentioned during the Harvey Milk FAC having lived in CA when he was killed)
  • University of Arizona IP reverts at QuattroBajeena
  • Past history of socking shows adaptability in edit summaries, emoticons, etc to initially hide socks
  • Mattisse edited last on 25 February at 0016, and did not edit from that account again that day until 14:23. QuattroBajeena (talk · contribs) was started at 01:39 same day, an hour and 23 minutes after last edit from Mattisse. Two hours ten minutes later, at 03:49, Charles Rodriguez (talk · contribs) account was started. Other sleeper accounts may have been created in the interim hours between Mattisse's last edit and Charles Rodriguez's account creation.
  • Timeline and editing pattern under construction at User:Laser brain/Sandbox

See also:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zengar Zombolt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 In progress by a CheckUser as I write. –MuZemike 04:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Interim results -  Confirmed

-- Avi (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ah, sorry MuZemike. These are all socks of Mattisse. Risker (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure: what about Zengar Zombolt (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), previously confirmed to be GetOutFrog here? Is that also a Mattisse sock? Tim Song (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: All accounts (re)tagged as socks of Mattisse. –MuZemike 17:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'd also like to endorse what Risker states above, as I have independently verified these results. So, the following accounts are  Confirmed as being socks of Zengar Zombolt (talk · contribs);
- Alison ❤ 07:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: just to clarify things here:

SpitfireTally-ho! 23:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 8 2010, 23:31 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by Ucucha
[edit]

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)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
  • Comment: Involvement with the above accounts has been vehemently denied by Mattisse, who is indefinitely blocked and now without the ability to edit her Talk page. However, she has selectively admitted to various socks, and denied other socks that were conclusively proven to be her. This should proceed so we have a complete record of her socks. If these are not her, the first three seem interrelated and we should have that information as well. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Ucucha 23:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 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.

Red X 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)[reply]

Thank you for the check. I have indefinitely blocked Chaelee and blocked Ashton 29 (the main account) for a week. Ucucha 05:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date March 10 2010, 19:33 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by SandyGeorgia
[edit]
  • See User:Laser brain/Sandbox for ongoing patterns of Mattisse socking. User Jttw is an account started on December 23, 2009, that doesn't act like a new editor, with a provocative statement added on the user page on March 4 ("Can you guess what it is yet?"), that went straight after Malleus Fatuorum, [5] [6] with the usual "I don't get it" queries. For those familiar with Mattisse, there are other indicators in Jttw's first edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See subsequent responses below: Considering the ongoing SPI on the Obama editors at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaydenver, that issue (not submitted by me) seems resolved. There are some aspects of Jttw's posts that seem beyond Mattisse's normal capabilities, but she has admitted to recruiting other editors (Charles Rodriguez). Although this doesn't mean Jttw is disinvolved with Mattisse, I agree running this CU is not going to be helpful, and don't know how they sort Mattisse accounts from the possible granchildren accounts, but the CUs have brains on board, and the arbs have lawyers on board. I withdraw this CU (but technically don't know how to do that, unless clerks can just archive it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by Ucucha
[edit]

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)[reply]

I received an e-mail from Mattisse denying a connection between her and this editor. Ucucha 04:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Mattisse requested me to post the following on her behalf as evidence. Ucucha 05:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments by other users
[edit]

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)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't get back to this ... other issues intervened. I only want to note, for the record, that Mattisse made at least one false statement above-- that she hasn't posted on my talk page for two years: that is not true, but I don't have time to find the diffs now, and it's not really relevant to this investigation, just an indication that she doesn't always tell the truth. Also, I recall the "granny defense" involved something about grandsons driving to Texas and sharing a computer, so that is troubling, but all we can do is watch these accounts, and it sounds like that editor may fall elsewhere. I'm wondering why an indef blocked user is entering a "defense" here ... I guess this is going to go on for a long time, and she will continue to have an audience, and we will all have to continue to watch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse states that "I have not posted on SandyGeorgia's page for at least two years."
  1. February 11, 2010
  2. August 13, 2009 (4 posts that day)
  3. July 30, 2009
  4. May 6, 2009
I stopped there, but see also User talk:SandyGeorgia/archr.
Mattisse states that " None of my sock puppets have ever posted on her page" and "None of my sock puppets has ever filed a FAR."
This is not verifiable, since we don't know what socks may have been operating during most of 2007, 2008 and 2009.
Mattisse states that "I have not done so for at lease a year and probably\ two years."
From Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3:

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.)

Her other statements about investigations of her socks can be viewed in this context: she has a long history of socking, and doesn't always have a firm grasp on the facts. Considering her history of a tenuous grasp on the facts, and of using e-mail to extend her version of said facts, I hope that proxying for Mattisse so that she can extend this long saga via e-mail won't continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She also claims that she has not participated in any AFDs since 2006, but in fact participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwin Curry as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical pederastic relationships (3rd nomination) on February 3, 2010. I don't think I'll do it again, although I do find it problematic when we're accusing someone without giving that person a chance to respond. Ucucha 14:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't think it's healthy for Mattisse to be able to continue this saga on Wiki, particularly since she doesn't always have full command of the facts. The CUs can sort it, and it may be best for her to direct her e-mail campaign to the arbs, rather than dragging in other editors. The CUs have expertise we're not privy to, and the arbs have lawyers on board; we don't. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "--- -- --- -----, Can you guess what it is yet?" on the talkpage looks like a game of hangman; unless I'm very much mistaken, the solution will be "Joy to the world". It's not something I'd consider a Mattisse characteristic, although it also indicates against them being British (any self-respecting British editor would say "Can you tell what it is yet?") – iridescent 13:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It strikes me that while Mattisse was blocked for good and sufficient reasons, a lot of accusations were made without very much evidence to them and were proved false here. I'm a bit concerned that there is no regret being expressed regarding the accusations, even the token "Sorry". I will note this. Mattisse's ability to edit her talk page was blocked by Laser Brain at SandyGeorgia's suggestion for "abuse" which so far as I can see, was denying sockpuppetry correctly. Leaving aside the question of whether LaserBrain correctly interpreted WP:BLOCK (I do not think he did), we now have a situation where the talkpage ability was removed for telling the truth! It strikes me as rather Kafkaesque!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right then, round up the usual suspects!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the self-evident truth hasn't yet struck you then. Do you recall Charles Rodriguez? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we have different interpretations of "truth", Wehwalt. At User talk:Mattisse, she stated that she had no socks in 2007, although there are 2007 CU socks (and we don't know about 2008 and others because CUs weren't run, but you can see the "truth" in her statements above). And, if she was telling the truth on her talk, then she shared computers or passwords with Charles Rodriguez, which then casts doubt on any other case. Further, meatpuppetry = sockpuppetry. Why the sudden defense when most of what is posted above is shown untrue? Laser blocked Mattisse at SandyGeorgia's suggestion? Is this a continuation from elsewhere of the theme that SG colludes to get editors blocked, or just the casual appearance of same? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt appears to be just another administrator with no understanding of honesty or integrity. No shortage of them. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, I can certainly see why your block log is as long as it is!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

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)[reply]

 Clerk note: Risker, just to clarify, did you intend the above to equate to a rejection of the request for checkuser? Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for a checkuser for this request. A UT professor was checkusered as part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaydenver and nothing was found there to link that account to Mattisse. Jttw edits from another continent. Risker (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk declined and close, per Risker. SpitfireTally-ho! 23:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
02 January 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
29 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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)[reply]

  • I am the user that suspected User:BarkingMoon was the vanished User:Rlevse - Special:Contributions/Vanished_6551232 this suspicion was based on a similar edit history and a strong resemblance in edit summary style. Edit summaries identical between the two accounts of disappr and prep and avoid redir and other similarities - lots of focus on DYK and a out of the blue attack on User Giano when user Rlevse left he was in dispute with Giano. BarkingMoon is clearly a very experienced wikipedian. - returning user. Off2riorob (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Wehwalt - CU data is only available for around 90 days I think. After the 90 days; it is no longer available to checkusers. So the checkuser tool will not help here; only the behavioral evidence will help. --Addihockey10 e-mail 10:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's magic to me, either way. I trust also that behavioral evidence will be checked to see if Rlevse is BarkingMoon?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


  • I don't see a connection to Mattisse. However I do see a lot of similarities between BarkingMoon and Vanished_6551232. I suggest that this be split off from the Mattisse SPI.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well; personally. Rlevse had an interest in scouting; if you look at the images he has uploaded etc. - wouldn't it make sense that Rlevse was a scout at one time as well? Today he could be the local school's scout leader. Usually scout leaders would be knowledgeable in birds and animals. Then again; it's a far-fetched theory. --Addihockey10 e-mail 01:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence is being compiled at User talk:Off2riorob#Distance.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case there is a consensus that this editor is the same as Vanished_6551232, functionaries should be aware that there were serious issues about his editing and participation which were discovered after his departure that were not discussed publicly out of respect for a vanished user. It would not be appropriate for him to return under a new name without addressing those issues. Doing so would be a violation of WP:SOCK (avoiding scrutiny), and of WP:RTV.   Will Beback  talk  03:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well in the case that it is him; he should've just let us know and we could've worked through the issues; rather than creating more. If it is you Rlevse; just let us know instead of forcing us to find out the hard way. We could work it through. It'd be better for both parties involved - you and I both know it. --Addihockey10 e-mail 06:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the evidence I'd be inclined to block the account as a sock violation. If there's other evidence to show something different it should be added here.   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say wait until the hold on the case is removed. --Addihockey10 e-mail 02:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No rush. I'm just saying that's my conclusion unless there's some other evidence of explanation. The user says he's shared information with an unidentified admin. If so, that admin should speak up.   Will Beback  talk  02:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that admin doesn't want to speak up because he might lose the trust of BarkingMoon. --Addihockey10 e-mail 02:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the admin. As I said on the BM talk page. What is it you want to know? I won't betray any confidentiality or privacy information, but I'll answer any questions I can. I'll say this much. It appears to me that much of this "information" is circumstantial. My understanding is that CU info goes stale after 90 days, Rlevse has been gone much longer than that. As far as I know, he wasn't "banned" (although I do understand the advice in the WP:RTV guideline. I repeat: guideline. First some people try to get this editor blocked claiming they were "Mattisse". When that failed, some folks switched to "Rlevse". Please see: WP:NOTFISHING. Since when did WP become some sort of Spanish Inquisition? Unless or until you have some rock solid proof that this editor is violating some policy, block, or ban. Then let the editor edit in peace please. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  03:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ched, I'm not fishing. I never said it was Mattisse and I don't know why this hasn't been moved out of the Mattisse archive. The behavioral evidence is pretty clear for the Vanished_6551232 connection. You say that you have been in off-Wiki contact with the editor. I assume he shared with you his previous account name. I have just two questions. 1) Did the user give any evidence to show he is who he claims to have been, or did he just make an assertion? 2) Did the user say he is the same person as Vanished_6551232? (That user may not have been banned as of the time of his retirement, but he would have faced some hard questioning about his activities if he hadn't vanished when he did. The user would be violating some important policies and guidelines if he returned under a new unidentified account.)   Will Beback  talk  08:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I trust that this is in capable hands and that I need say nothing further.   Will Beback  talk  10:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanished_6551232 is known to me in real life (though it's been a couple of years since I've seen him). I would be very surprised if he has returned as BarkingMoon without saying something to me, but I suppose it's possible. If he is BarkingMoon, that doesn't break any rules - he is not banned and is free to return at any time. As for Mattisse, it's categorically impossible that he is Vanished_6551232. Consider their edits for February 28, 2010 (Mattisse, rlevse). It's just not possible that these are the same person - there are too many places where they both have edits at the same time. Sure, I realize that sock puppeteers can create false evidence (two browsers, hit enter at the same time, etc), but if you keep going, you find overlapping edits constantly. So either Rlevse's sole purpose in life was to create false evidence proving that he wasn't Mattisse or they are two different people. For that matter, Mattisse has edits on Saturday, March 24, 2007 and I can personally testify that Rlevse was in my presence that weekend and there was no internet access - there is zero chance he was editing that day. --B (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • B, no one has ever thought rlevse and mattisse are the same person. This BarkingMoon person was first thought to be Mattisse. Now it is theorized that this BarkingMoon is Rlevse instead. BarkingMoon is most definitely someone who has been around before, but they haven't said who yet. Tex (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If BarkingMoon is Rlevse and without some explanation of similar interests and styles there is a good case that they are, the account has violated WP:RTV. As Ched is again mentioning WP:fishing - I think it is time to move the detail from here to a Rlevse specific case where the data connecting the two accounts and additional detail can be presented. I had stopped presenting detail as the case is under discussion. I have never switched my position, imo when I compared the accounts it was closer to a quacking situation. Off2riorob (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If an editor invokes RTV and then changes his mind, can he still come back as his original account? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think we need to not be so legalistic about it. As long as someone is contributing positively and not using socks to game the system in some way, who cares? People get threatened in real life because of something they say or do on Wikipedia - if they want to "cool off" for awhile, there's no intrinsic harm in that. The harm is when they use socks to create a false consensus or to harass previous opponents or some such thing. --B (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If BarkingMoon is Rlevse (a big if), I'm unclear on how that's a violation. Wikipedia:Clean start seems to allow for ... well ... making a clean start. I agree that BarkingMoon is obviously a repeat customer, but making a clean start is not a violation. There is at least one edit that BarkingMoon has concerning a topic primarily of local interest to Rlevse's geographic area (I think that's general enough to not be outing), but that could easily be coincidence - he has plenty of edits to topics from other geographical areas. If this is Rlevse, User_talk:BarkingMoon#SPI is somewhat discouraging to me - I am not BarkingMoon's mystery admin (whom he says is the only admin he trusts) and I would like to think that Rlevse trusts me - I've known him since before either of us was on Wikipedia. So for me, I'm convinced they're not the same person. --B (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BBugs. If a user violated WP:RTV then their contributions should imo be moved back to the account and then discussion should occur. If they decide to move to WP:CLEANSTART then thats cool and they should not do what they did this time which was return to a previous dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • @B - if there is dispute I would request allowance to open a specific page where all evidence already collected and additional evidence can be compiled and presented fully. Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not the one to be requesting allowance from to present anything. I have looked at your talk page where you have posted some of the evidence and, in fairness, if I didn't know Rlevse, I'd probably say there's a better than 50% chance they're the same. But I'm back to "so what". Other than failure to rigidly adhere to the correct set of WP: hoops and concentric circles, I'm not clear on an actual problem. If there's an issue with this user and Giano, have a mutual interaction ban and move on with life. --B (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

            • see this diff - BarkinMoon says, after only four weeks editing - Strong Support @Delta - Damiens.rf IS THE PROBLEM. This is the third time I've seen a thread on him at AN/ANI in less than a month. The issues with him obviously go way back. Time for the the community to stand up to him for a change. - this is clearly not just a comment from his present identity but a historic response. Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • So what? You've no right to know if it is, or if it isn't, the return of a vanished editor. This is an abuse of SPI, and I'm surprised it hasn't been thrown out by the clerk already. BarkinMoon has nothing to answer to, and I'm 100% sure that the clerk won't tell anyone if it is or isn't a returning editor, much less identify their old account. --HighKing (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:RTV - is just that. It is not, well you know - beans. If your editing is in question ask for all your edit history to be moved from your name and wait three months till the checkuser is stale and then return without any reference to you previous issues. The previous account absolutely left under a cloud without assisting in the plagiarism issues the account created. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This is not a "so what" situation. If I understand it correctly, someone invoking RTV is allowed to come back, provided they give proper notification and use the same ID, as all their deleted stuff will be restored as if they had simply gone on hiatus. Coming back as a different user ID, for the purpose of trying to avoid scrutiny, is not kosher. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is just yet another bloody mismanaged Arbcom balls up! By the time these clowns tell us (or more likely don't tell us) who it is half of Wikipedia will be under suspicion. I have known for some time who it is - is it to be left to me to announce it? Giacomo (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free. I haven't seen anything stopping you.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inherent good manners. Giacomo (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you have a lot of experience Giacomo but I have had a pretty good look at this and imo User:BarkingMoon was the vanished - User:Rlevse - Special:Contributions/Vanished_6551232, the connections I can see and others have also seen, some of which I have laid out on my talkpage and here loudly quacking at me. As a previous Bureaucrat and the fourth largest contributor to the Bureaucrat noticeboard he has been unable to stay away from there and BarkingMoon already has thirteen posts there in three different threads. diff More than long term contributors SlimVirgin and Ironholds and Sarek and others. Lamenting perhaps the loss of his prior crat status in this diff.Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am slowly revising my opinion. It's not Matisse, I am pretty sure of that. I have been a 100% sure for a while, but I still have a problem beleiving my own opinion purely because I don't think the Arbcom would countenance it and if they did not, then cause this unseemly delay. I don't think there is any need to ban anyone over this, having a pop at me seems to be the only stupid edit this account made and he appologised for that. I beleive we just need to be aware of the account's former name and then move on - this delay is making me people's minds work overtime - never a healthy situation. Giacomo (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found Rob's evidence page very convincing. But given that I'm the complainant and this is about Mattisse, a little note from a clerk ruling her out would be grately appreciated before you go get your yearly dose of fireworks. I mean, rl fireworks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies to Steve, but the roar of the crowd suggests I should reply in some manner. Although I'm not certain, I believe that I am this mystery admin that is "trusted" (though I'm not sure why). As such, I've posted my tl;dr wall of text on the matter here I'd also like to say that my "fishing" links were not directed at any individual ... but rather a conglomeration of this effort to out BarkingMoon. For those who feel the "need to know" something beyond the anonymous user name. Perhaps you might care to read: First they came…. Anything else can be posted to my talk page if you wish a response. For now, I think I'd rather just sit, watch, and keep my thoughts to myself. Best to all. — Ched :  ?  01:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (posted per email request) add in the difference in bird interests. Apparently Rlevse had no special interests there. BarkingMoon (posted as requested by — Ched :  ?  01:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    • Yes, the bird interest stuff has no connection to Rlevse, personally I saw this as working together with an old associate - Casliber, the bird edits were not something the new account went directly to but perhaps imo reflected an attempt to move towards cleanstart. If BarkingMoon has stuck to bird edit improvements and DYK and not commented in dramah threads and commented in a clear historic manner about users they had a clear prior issue with we would not be here. Off2riorob (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Enough is enough
[edit]

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)[reply]

I've contacted the ArbCom about this and have been told they are looking into it. I think that it's reasonable to delay further public discussion pending completion of the private discussions. I'm sure an answer will be forthcoming within a few days.   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Holiday weekend is upon us. This topic's fireworks can wait until the 5th. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, most of the world is not enjoying a holiday, only one small part of it; and we have waited quite long enough, what is being covered up here - or shall we go and see if the answer is on Wikipedia Review. Giacomo (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that you believe is being "covered up"? If the contention that this user = Rlevse is correct, then there is nothing to "cover up" - the checkuser evidence would have long since expired. Is the "cover up" that it takes longer than 48 hours to brand a former arbiter and bureaucrat as a sockpuppeteer and banish them from the kingdom forever? --B (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
    • Not entirely. Some more information has surfaced that verifies the identity of these accounts, however I'm awaiting instruction on how to proceed with this. Until then, this case is on hold. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Will- Based on developments that have occured recently, we feel we have enough evidence to verify the original identity of the BarkingMoon account. As the course of action to take is still under discussion, I'll say no more on the matter apart from the fact that more info will be posted here in due course. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Will- As this is being internally discussed at present, I'd ask that all discussion here is put on hold until further developments result from the internal discussion. Thanks. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 08:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Wehwalt: As the committee is discussing this internally, I don't know for sure if they've ruled out Barkingmoon being Mattisse, so can't comment on that yet. We will be told in due course. Steve Public (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The committee is not aware of any reason for any action by anyone in this matter at this time. Mattisse is no longer suspected; the other suspect (Rlevse) is not under any sanction; ArbCom has not been contacted by BarkingMoon or the admin. The community needs to first decide whether there is sufficient grounds to require that BarkingMoon disclose their prior identity. There are only a few instances of BarkingMoon having made references to their prior identity, and if BarkingMoon is Rlevse, they have done a fairly decent job of a clean start, with a completely different focus and now demonstrating proficiency in German.[23] Keep in mind how that ended last time. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Clerk note: Based on John's comments, Mattisse is Red X Unrelated to BarkingMoon. No comment at this time on whether BarkingMoon is Vanished 6551232, as this is still being discussed. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I've been told, the next step from here is to have a discussion as to whether there's sufficient grounds to disclose private information about this user. That should be pursued first, but perhaps let's wait for the dust to settle. There is no urgent rush to find out, and from my understanding, the issue is still being discussed somewhat. Let's give it a few days. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 07:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ho ho ho. Giacomo Returned 08:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing with no action. If you have any issues, then open a user RfC. Bsadowski1 21:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this non-action took a week? You guys don't come out of this looking very good here, you know. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, there is clearly a quacking case that User:BarkingMoon is User;Rlevse now RTV at User:Vanished 6551232 - and opening a RFC won't change that - if the user keeps away from any noticeboard and conflict it is one thing, any repeat of the accounts conflict commenting will raise this straight to the top of the woodpile. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Enough. This case is closed, and further comments here should stop. Yes, this case did take a while, but that happens from time to time. While there are strong indications that BarkingMoon is a vanished user, they do appear to me making a strong effort at a clean start and should not be held subject to sanction unless they are found to be disruptive. There is no indication here that this is the case. If someone believes it is, or that BarkingMoon should be required in spite of their privacy to disclose their previous identity, then that someone should open an RfC to that effect. Any further speculation on this page will be reverted out of respect for BarkingMoon's privacy. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
THIS case Hersfold will be closed when and if I decide to drop it. If Rlevse wishes to return and attack me, then I have a right to know. I do not advise reverting me mere because I do not give up that easily. Giacomo Returned 21:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I checked, you were neither an administrator, checkuser, nor SPI clerk. Therefore, you have no authority whatsoever to declare that this case cannot be closed without your approval. If you feel that BarkingMoon is here for the purpose of harassing you, you have been given instruction on how to address that matter. This is not the proper forum for that discussion, and any further edits to this page, especially in such a tone, will be regarded as disruption and reverted. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, this is an editor abusing "right to vanish" by making personal attacks; now get on with your job and do it. I was happy for this not to ggo to checkuser, but seeing as it has, the last thing we need at the moment is another cover up of an inept Arb. Giacomo Returned 21:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I don't think this is the best forum to discuss this issue any further. If there's still an issue, and it's clear you still feel there is, a different forum should be used, such as AN/I or an RFC/U. Our purpose here at SPI is to determine if there is sockpuppetry going on, from what we've found, we're not really sure, but think that this is the sort of discussion a wider amount of the community should look into, and this is our reason for closing the case. Nothing more can be done here. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

19 July 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


(they are all "weak" but explaining the gestalt.)

  • Editing on pages I work on, out of the blue after recent interaction.
  • Minimal user page content. Including the "I am a new user be nice to me" comment on one.
  • Timing of account creation (rough).
  • For the Smarty account, lot of activity in SEP10, including a 24SEP10 edit summary reading "addicted to copy editing, giggle"
  • Remarks on each account indicating Bay Area life experience (not sure what Mattisse's home is): grew up in Oakland for one, other worked for Rainforest Action Network
  • Age for the Smarty account (ec says "born 1943" and Mattisse is a "grandmother")
  • edit summaries from the beggining of work.
  • Typing "copy edit", not "ce"
  • the emphasis on prose copyedit content conribution (not writing new articles or large swaths of content addition or image work)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

CircleAdrian (talk · contribs) seems to have a distinctly political theme to edits, creation of Mike Roselle points to them being an environmentalist. Mattisse did have some political edits but not exclusively so.--Salix (talk): 07:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this investigation as I wish to have all socking concerns possible cleared about Mattisse in the course of her comeback.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transparency and normal processing

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)[reply]

Same here. As this seems an issue, I think the cold light of day should shine on this one. I would rather this began and stayed there, rather than remaining behind a curtain until, and unless, someone cares to leak another confidential matter entitled to ArbCom. And if that's harsh, that's also true.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The accused, accuser, and a perfect gentleman all think it should be public. I'm not understanding the almost reflexive secrecy. Very old Wiki. We have a process here. Let the CU do his job.TCO (reviews needed) 22:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

(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))[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - It seems Mattisse has applied to be reinstated, so I guess we can take a look. There is no overlap between the two accused socks, but there is overlap with Mattisse and one of them, so maybe some clarification is in order. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    information Administrator note Not speaking as a Checkuser, I'd defer this request to the Arbitration committee. Keegan (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why?TCO (reviews needed) 06:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's Mattisse. I'll take a look, but will forward my results to ArbCom. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to set the record straight, I have not applied to arbcom for reinstatement. My experience in the past is that when evidence is kicked up to arbcom, then the evidence remains secret and sockpuppets are falsely attributed to me, as in the case of User:Loopy48 and User:74.97.209.127 which were attributed to me when I was offline for a period of time, so hence impossible to be me. I request that any evidence not be secret. I request transparancy. Sincerely, Mattisse (IP deleted)

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)[reply]

In the past Risker has excused blocked editors from posting in a situation such as this, as a blocked editor has no other means of expression. Is an exeption to be made in my case?
Also, why did you remove the comments of Wehwalt and TCO? Is this being conducted as a normal case? Remember, I have not applied to arbcom for anything other than explanations for why I was accused of sockpuppets that were not mine. Mattisse
They were not removed. I clearly indicated above that I moved them to the above section. –MuZemike 23:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have NOT applied for reinstatement, so why is arbcom even involved? Why can this just be run as a straight chechuser. Why the hocus pocus? Mattisse

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)[reply]

  • SmartyBoots and CircleAdrian are Red X Unrelated to Mattisse and  Unlikely to be related to each other. Further, a review of Mattisse's usual editing ranges does not reveal any obvious socks, based on a combination of technical and behavioural evidence. Checks related to Mattisse are usually referred to Arbcom because she is indirectly under an Arbcom sanction at present. Case can be closed. Risker (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC) PS - Mattisse, no more editing by IP, even on a sockpuppetry investigation about yourself, please. If you feel the need to comment on an SPI about yourself, please do so on your talk page and use the "Help" template to ask that it be linked to or copied over to the investigation page. It reduces the chance of others getting distracted. Risker (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Risker, closing. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
01 January 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Logging this for posterity. NW (Talk) 22:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Another checkuser and I have independently  Confirmed this. Blocking now. NW (Talk) 22:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

26 July 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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. --Rschen7754 21:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

information 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)[reply]

  • Like Rschen7754 I'm not an expert on Mattisse although somewhat familiar with this extraordinarily mutable sockmaster. I've blocked Retrolord in the past and have had a great deal of interaction with them (including setting the terms of their topic ban, unblocking, etc.), so I will recuse myself from clerking and simply say that at a minimum, this is entirely possible for a number of reasons, including preferences, hitting the ground running, forced personality, etc. I would be shocked if he wasn't a sock of someone (one reason I've been watching), and Mattisse seems a likely suspect. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the note above: Retrolord being unable to post here doesn't condition a CU investigation.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How exactly can I defend myself from this rather ridiculous sockpuppet investigation if I have been summarily blocked?
I do not know a mattise other than I was accused of being one by a random IP about two weeks ago (Wonder who that was...)
All I can say is CHECKUSER AWAY! Because I am not mattise. Full disclosure for those insisting i'm a sock of someone. I was an IP lurker at the site for quite a while before registering.
Thanks I guess. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 00:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Clerk declined - This isn't enough evidence for a check. Furthermore, they are on different continents, so I find it unlikely that they are the same. Retrolord strikes me as a younger editor, something I never noticed about Mattisse. Closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
26 November 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Procedural investigation: I am merely logging this new Mattisse sock for future reference. AGK [•] 17:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
04 September 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Procedural investigation: I am merely logging this new Mattisse sock for future reference. AGK [•] 19:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
07 May 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


General:

  1. As noted on SPI talk, I am unable to make the editor interaction utility above work; perhaps I am using it incorrectly, but it does not produce any of the interaction noted below in evidence.
  2. Further detail at: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mattisse
  3. I present here only a very small part of the evidence available; with long-time, repeat disruptive sockmasters, it is not optimal to detail all of the known behaviors. The profile is already known to the arbs and documented at the long-term abuse page; if CUs need more evidence, it can be provided.
  4. IMO, the evidence (and my years-long experience with Mattisse socks) indicates conclusively that EChastain (EC) is Mattisse, but to the potential argument that EC can be blocked per DUCK without a CU, I note that there is a current arbcase (in which, btw, EC is stirring the pot, samples [30] [31] [32], there is more) and several previous SPIs along with commentary on various talk pages where the identity of more than one other editor is confused with EC (@TParis:, @Anthonyhcole:, @Drmies:). A CU will be helpful for those other situations and so the current arbcase can proceed without confusion of sockmaster identities. I am also concerned that there has been a recent alteration in normal editing patterns, so that there may be multiple socks to be discovered in the drawer.
Article interaction with EC (not all included, articles edited by more than one sock bolded)
Parabolooidal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Roman Polanski
  • Shameless (U.S. TV series)
  • Đeravica Lake
Soranoch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Farrajak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Star767 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
  • Charles Patrick Ewing
  • Lahore
  • Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist)
  • The Female Brain (book)
MathewTownsend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Adriatic Sea
  • Jon Voight
Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Activity theory
  • Autism
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Curtis Mayfield
  • Dam
  • Dementia praecox
  • Gang bang
  • Gel
  • Lahore
  • MS-DOS
  • Masonry dam
  • Negativity effect
  • Non-rapid eye movement sleep
  • Oppositional defiant disorder
  • Positivity effect
  • Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist)
  • Roman Polanski
  • Selective perception
  • Sewage sludge
  • Temple Grandin
  • Thought suppression
  • University of California, Berkeley

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].

Timing
Parabolooidal (talk · contribs · logs) was CU-blocked in September 2014.
EChastain (talk · contribs · logs) was created in October 2014.
Sample behaviors (small number of samples only, not comprehensive in the least, additional evidence can be supplied on request)
  1. See user page relative to past profile (noting, btw, that having a PhD in psychology and being an alumni of UC Berkeley is not the same as having a PhD from UC Berkeley).
  2. "Poor me", "so confused" and "so afraid" [41] [42] [43]
  3. By her 11th edit she was at ArbCom [44], and in other discussions reveals reasoning that supports her switch to supporting her former "plague list". [45] That EC has cozied up to the former "plague list" (Bishonen, Montanabw, and other FA regulars for example) is entirely consistent with the profile and the oft-expressed view of what she considered a "FAC clique" or "incrowd" that she longed to be part of; she seems to indicate that now GGTF is a greater evil than this "in crowd", and opposing GGTF provides a vehicle for acceptance. [46]
Samples of disruption

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

I have now taken the time to examine Sue Rangell's editing history, and I cannot find any evidence that Mattisse and Rangell operate the same accounts, and plenty of evidence that they are not the same editor. But Sue Rangell and accounts operated by Mattisse do have significant article overlap, not all of which can be explained by the similarity in their professions.[53] To explain the (realistic) concern that Lightbreather raised about EChastain's first edit being to Mogollon Rim, I think that a good case could be made here for WP:MEAT (some of Sue Rangell's first edits indicate the possibility that Mattisse and Rangell could be acquainted-- if not IRL, then via email). Arbs and CUs familiar with Mattisse geographical areas of interest will find those connections by looking at Rangell's first week of editing. If that is the case, that EChastain has gone after Lightbreather in similar ways to hounding under other accounts could be a factor in the arbcase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking repeat sockmasters

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)[reply]

Depending on the outcome of this SPI, Mattisse might request re-opening Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse to evaluate whether she should be allowed to continue editing under one account. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • I am quite familiar with the history of Mattisse's behavior and I agree with the conclusion that EChastain is a Mattisse sock. The substantial overlap in editing interests, rhetorical style, and reaction to conflict is clear. I have actually been aware of this connection for quite some time—as Sandy pointed out, her "tells" are obvious and pronounced once you get to know her style. I was ignoring the situation in hopes the she would find a quiet corner to edit in and just be at peace. However, she has shown (again) that she cannot resist slipping back into the conflict/poor me/lashing out pattern that has gotten her blocked repeatedly under various accounts. I am not calling for the EChastain account to be blocked, nor am I convinced that would be the most helpful outcome. I believe she will continue to create alternate accounts ad infinitum, and I believe it might be better if everyone knows what account she is using. --Laser brain (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I don't buy it. We know Mattisse is a retired grandmother, this user seems younger in choice of articles. Seems to have a special interest in Water treatment and sanitation which we never saw in Mattisses edits. When Mattisse lost it there would be lots accusation and confusion, I've not seen the spectacular level of loosing it that we get from Mattisse. The voice does not match for me.--Salix alba (talk): 17:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which, coming from you (one of Mattisse's oldest and staunchest defenders, who by the way seems to have lost touch with the editing trends of her more recent socks), is not at all surprising. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mattisse/Archive&oldid=1136068187"