Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:18, 5 July 2011

– An administrator or SPI clerk has placed this case on hold pending further information or developments.

Mattisse

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse/Archive.

A long-term abuse case exists at Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Mattisse.

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

• Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse
• Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (2nd)
• Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd)
• Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (4th)

• Requests for checkuser/Case/Mattisse

29 June 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

• BarkingMoon (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Vanished_6551232 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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. , , , , , , , . 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)

• 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)

@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)

@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 10:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

Comments by other users

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

• Mattisse does edit on other wiki's principally WikiSource there may be a chance to check cross wiki IP information.--Salix (talk): 12:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• BarkingMoon seemed to have a special interest in Birds , , , , etc. The level of detail of these edits points to someone well versed in ornithology and taxonomy which don't occur in Mattisses edit history.--Salix (talk): 12:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

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 01:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Evidence is being compiled at User talk:Off2riorob#Distance.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • my final statement on the matter is on my talk pageBarkingMoon (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 06:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

I'd say wait until the hold on the case is removed. --Addihockey10 02:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

Maybe that admin doesn't want to speak up because he might lose the trust of BarkingMoon. --Addihockey10 02:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
  • I trust that this is in capable hands and that I need say nothing further.   Will Beback  talk  10:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • If an editor invokes RTV and then changes his mind, can he still come back as his original account? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
      • 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 Misplaced Pages - 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)
    • If BarkingMoon is Rlevse (a big if), I'm unclear on how that's a violation. Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. So for me, I'm convinced they're not the same person. --B (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
      • He invoked WP:RTV - a final goodbye not a play on the guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • @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)
      • @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)
        • 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)
          • He is continuing disputes from previous account - I also notice a couple of attacking comment from Barking against user Damian - another account he was previousely in dispute with as Rlevse - see a couple of blocks Rlevse made on Damian - Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

• • • • • • 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)
            • 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)
              • 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)
                • 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 carrots→ 16:46, 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Feel free. I haven't seen anything stopping you.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Inherent good manners. Giacomo (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• (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))
  • 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)

Enough is enough

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)

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)

Holiday weekend is upon us. This topic's fireworks can wait until the 5th. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages Review. Giacomo (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk note: Who is the checkuser actually being run against. We need an account to run the checkuser against. Also, what makes you think BarkingMoon is Rlevse? Given the nature of this allegation, we will need more evidence than use of edit summaries. That's speaking for myself, but other clerks are free to chip in. Steven Zhang 10:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Clerk note: This is a tough one. It's pretty evident that they're either a returning user or a new user that has long edited as an anon and made an account. I've not looked through contribs enough to say any more at this time, but this will need some more looking into. Both previous accounts listed here are obviously stale, so  Clerk declined as no checkuser can be done here. Steven Zhang 10:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Clerk note: Updated case per notes above. Steven Zhang 10:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Clerk declined - as too  Stale for checkuser to be of any use here. Behavioural evidence will have to be looked into here, but I assume it will take a while to look into. Still looking over contribs to see any possible connections. Steven Zhang 11:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• So the bottom line here is that a couple people went WP:NOTFISHING and caught NOTHING. Good job. And ya wonder why we have trouble keeping new users? — Ched :  ?  13:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• • 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 00:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • @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 01:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • @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 08:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • @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)
• 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. Keep in mind how that ended last time. John Vandenberg 01:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases for pre-CheckUser review
• SPI cases on hold by clerk