User talk:Mattisse

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

I think a more appropriate tag to put near an inline cite that goes to a webpage where a story has been moved or pulled would be something akin to dead link, not failed verify. It was a simple matter to verify after going to archive.org. ---mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 04:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link is misleading, as the link checker will frequently show such a link as good. As far as I know there is no tag for "moved or pulled" as you suggest. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On February 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Stayner, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For running multiple accounts per a checkuser, and attempting to continue to attack another user, I have indefinitely blocked this account. SirFozzie (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Is there no doubt about this? Could you not be mistaken? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've had several people look at this, persuant to other issues, and they've signed off on it. SirFozzie (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any details of this? I've looked in a few places and could not see reference. What was the puppet account? --Salix (talk): 08:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts. One minute, I'll tag them. SirFozzie (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Charles Rodriguez (talk · contribs) is a sock. Oh dear Mattisse I would have hopped you would have learnt by now that sockpuppets is not the way to go.--Salix (talk): 09:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We really didn't need the checkuser to confirm as the account uses the same unique language and words as Mattisse, a style that only she uses. It's disheartening because many of us were hoping Mattisse would change her spots and pull through. Mattisse, if you are reading this, please remember that you don't need this kind of negative attention. If you come clean and apologize, I would be happy to support your return. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's just dandy; want to put me through another two years of this while I AGF my pollyanna arse into Wiki-oblivion? This is the third time she's done this socking ... that we know about ... I'm glad you're happy to welcome her return ... in the meantime, I work my arse off for Wiki, and had no clue I was working against Mattisse's grudges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Amended. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are upset, and you hit upon the problem: Mattisse holds grudges, and she needs to let go of them, starting now. It's unlikely she will be unblocked unless she can do this. And we all know she isn't going to disappear, so it is reasonable to ask her to come clean under this account, rather than play whack-a-mole for the next several years. She obviously likes to edit here, but for some reason none of us can figure out, she has interpersonal conflicts that remain unresolved. I know that Wikipedia is not therapy, and given her past, I also know that it is very unlikely that Mattisse will be unblocked in the foreseeable future. But, I also think it is important to keep the lines of communication open. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you do that ... in the meantime, I've had a good lesson in the limitations of AGF, and no one should ever have to endure this again. wake up and smell the roses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm awake, and they smell wonderful. Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Mattisse is to be unblocked, I would recommend returning to User:Mattisse/Plan or the arbitration case and adding an explicit section about sock-puppets. Something along the line of any further use of sock-puppets will result in a permanent ban from wikipedia. Mattisse seems to need very strict boundaries with clearly spelt out consequences.--Salix (talk): 11:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose lifting this block under any circumstances. This user has displayed a long-term pattern of accepting consequences and conditional returns, only to walk away from mentors and return to previous editing behavior at the drop of a hat. We should no longer accommodate this user. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am astounded to wake to this, and to see that one mentor is questioning the block,[2], that others are discussing conditions for possible unblock (above) and Philcha is proposing a revision to the Mattisse's Plan that would actually have the effect of preventing her from ever being indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.[3]

• To quickly review the situation, Mattisse is subject to an July 2009 arbcom mandated plan which places behavioural limits on Mattisse including avoidance of assumptions of bad faith, personalizing conflict, disruptive point-making and questioning the motivations of others. She has had several mentors/advisors working with her. A clarification of the Arb Com motions in December 2009 noted requirements that she "not make any remark about another editor on Wikipedia that could be seen as negative without first consulting her mentors/advisors" and placed her under conduct probation for one year. The closing comments of two arbitrators warned her about the seriousness of any repetition of problematic behaviour.

• Mattisse also has a long history of creating impermissible, abusive sockpuppets,[4] starting in 2006 and most recently, until this incident, in August 2009 when she was blocked for two weeks for creating sockpuppets to attack another user.[5] Now it appears that Mattisse has created two four new sockpuppets, three of were used separately to edit Venezuelan articles where SandyGeorgia, an editor with whom she has been in past conflict, has been active. The user:Charles Rodriguez puppet denied being a sockpuppet[6], and two pretended to be new editors [7][8] and engaged in a series of posts on the talkpages of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary), Hugo Chavez and on the Rodriguez user talkpage including [9][10] [11][12][13][14][15][16] which break multiple aspects Mattisse's Plan (assumptions of bad faith, personalizing of issues, questioning of motivations etc). And one also presumes that she did not, as she is required to do, contact her mentors/advisors before making the negative comments about others, or indeed about creating the socks themselves. If these edits had made under her own account they would have certainly attracted alerts to her mentors, and I presume action from them. These sockpuppets were clearly used to evade scrutiny and to circumvent sanctions, including conduct probation imposed by Arbcom.

In my view a very long block, even an indefinite block, is appropriate. Enough is enough. I personally always try to hold out some hope for eventual rehabilitation, though it is instructive to check old versions of Mattisse's talkpage (see this one, for example, that I picked at random from 2006 [17]), and see how little has changed in the years she has edited here. But if it an unblock does occur, I suggest that this does not happen for long time (a year?) and only with very stringent conditions. --Slp1 (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no way to spin this. I don't like to comment on intent but it is fairly obvious that at least one account actively harassed one of Mattisse's "enemies". Using alternative accounts deceptively, and in a manner that avoids scrutiny, is something that all editors know is a strict no-no. I don't know what length of block is appropriate, but clearly, to the extent that it is a two-way street, mentorship is pretty much a dead deal here. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm interested in what Mattisse has to say about the issues and evidence being discussed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to slp1, at the time Philcha and myself woke up there was little info about the block, we did not even know user:Charles Rodriguez was the sock. So it was right at that time to question the block. I do not now question the block which is entirely appropriate. I do also agree with slp1's analysis of the ways in which she broke her plan.

The question is how long the block should be for and whether the block should become a permant ban. I guess this will be a question for Arbcom rather than here. When considering a ban the good does need to be weighted against the bad as she has consistently made voluminous good edits, we would loose these with a ban. With Mattisse it has always been a case of damage limitation, and I think the mentoring system is getting better at reducing the damage caused.--Salix (talk): 17:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This website has a limited pool of editors who are able and willing to mentor well. Less than a week ago one editor asked me for the third time to mentor him; he's under arbitration sanction too and has been searching for a mentor for months without success; he isn't socking. The team of people who mentored Mattisse deserve wholehearted thanks for doing their best. There's a proposal up at the ChildofMidnight workshop which perhaps they would look at and consider helping with. Mattisse has gotten as many chances as any editor receives; other people who are productive content contributors could also use assistance. Durova⁴¹² 18:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, that's all true, but some of us would like some closure. Mattisse was helped by a great many people for many years and for it to finally come to this is of no surprise. The only thing I can conclude is that when she recently announced she was giving up on her plan, she was going to try and get herself indefinitely blocked on purpose. But to what end? Does she think this is the only way to get attention? It doesn't make any sense to us, and it would help greatly if Mattisse could explain herself. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this block is unreasonable. It should come as no surprise because Mattisse has considered me someone opposed to her in the past. I'll be honest in saying that no one on this site has challenged my personal goal to treat others with more respect than they treat me more than Mattisse. I have been the object of what I consider to be undeserved attention and have, for the most part, not risen to behave in kind. My personal involvement aside, I think we're past the point of instructing a user who claims she has no knowledge of what actions are wrong and forbidden. I cannot believe an editor as intelligent as Mattisse cannot discern for herself what is unacceptable, and the level of basic instruction that has been thrust upon her mentors is simply unfair. We have thus far allowed behavior in an fully functional adult that we would not in adolescent editors, and continuing to allow it is beginning to seem contemptuous to the editors who Mattisse has unfairly targeted. Mattisse has created more than 550 articles. We must all face the end of our tenure on Wikipedia in whatever form it comes. She has reason to be proud of what she has created, but the resources of this site are unreasonably being directed toward an editor who is unable to monitor herself the way everyone else is expected to. --Moni3 (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that it's time to switch gears here, now that more of us are aware that Mattisse is unlikely or unable to change. Is there any other editor with this history of socking and this kind of block log who is not site banned? Sockpuppeteers are unlikely to stop socking. Isn't it time we begin to focus on defending the Wiki instead of defending Mattisse? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, I can't believe that list of sockpuppets. They're only the ones that have been discovered though of course. I really do think that Mattisse has probably stepped way over the line with her recent games, and it's clear that despite the best efforts and intentions of her mentors nothing changed, and in fact she was deceiving them. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I share the view that Mattisse has crossed a significant line here in her disruptive edits, her talk page now is not the best time and place to discuss it.

Arbitrators need the time now to decide what to do in the long term. Mattisse needs the space here to comment if she wishes too. I have made a few comments on my initial view in other fora. Lets all try to minimize any fallout. Geometry guy 21:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to make any further comment Geometry guy, either here or elsewhere, other than to say that I'm really saddened it's come to this. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattisse. I'm not an expert on your editing or your history, but when I checked the other day it seemed like you were working away in good faith on various articles. What's the story on the other accounts you were using? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest moving this discussion to a more public forum. That is, if there is anything to discuss, which is up to Mattisse, I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized discussion is at the Alerts page of Mattisse's plan; someone may want to move all of this to there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Faith-based community, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith-based community. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

• User:Peter Damian (old)
• User:HistorianofLogic
• User:Logicist
• User:Here today, gone tomorrow
• User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am deeply regretful of my behavior and believe that I owe not only a huge apologize but a sincere effort to come clean regarding my sock puppets. The following is an attempt to do so, with thanks to brain's Sandbox for corraling the data.

I admit that I had sockpuppets which were caught September 1, 2006, not all of which I can account for as others were using my computers, but for which I will take responsibility.

I started editing on Wikipedia in May of 2006, and created my first sock puppet shortly after User:NothingMuch who edited from May to September 1, 2006 and made 125 edits in that time, 115 of which are live. My subequent sock puppets were

• User:Capit (127 edits (115 live) from July 14-29, 2006)
• User:Massmato (44 edits (41 live) on July 22)
• User:GBYork (575 (532 live) between August 12 and September 1)
• User:NLOleson (272 edits between August 20, 2006 September 1)
• User:Flinders (110 edits (87 live) between August 25, 2006 and September 1)
• User:Pygmalian (no edits),
• User:AwfulMe (no edits)

These sockpuppets ended when I was blocked September 1, 2006

I admit that I created sock puppet for the sole purpose of making a point to User:Bishonen about her sock puppets. I created:

• User:CallMeNow (who made 5 edits the last week in August, 2009 to Bishonen and two of her socks, User:Little Toxic Personality and User:Bishzilla )
• User:VividMe (who made 9 unremarkable edits over 2 days in August, 2009
• User:Big Toxic Personality (no edits).

I also created in October, 2009

• User:Mr. Unsigned Not worth it (who made 13 edits between October 2009 and February 25, 2010, one to a Venezuelan related article, and three to a Venezuelan talk page that were disruptive to SandyGeorgia.)

• User:ChrisCopo (made 32 edits between February 19-25, 2010, none to Venezuelan articles, three nondisruptive edits to the talk page of an American economist who sometimes comments on Venezuelan economics.

I admit that User:Always blue, User:Talking image, User:Chapter & verse and User:Apartadmit were sock puppets of mine

However, I deny that User:GetOutFrog, User:QuattroBajeena, User:Yzak Jule, or User:Zengar Zombolt are mine. User:Zengar Zombolt goes back to July 2006. User:GetOutFrog was previously found to be a sock of User:Zengar Zombolt, but that archive was deleted today here. Also, User:150.135.210.16 is not my sock puppet.

Further, User:Ashton 29, User:Youshotandywarhol, or User:Chaele are not my sock puuppets, as is being hypothesized. I suggest that, as SandyGeorgia says, my editing behavior is predictable. Although it is wrong to have sock puppets, and I recognize that, I have not vandalized articles, or added poor or unsourced information. Except for the two mistaken tags noted by SandyGeorgia, my tagging of articles has been correct, if not always convenient.