| Revision as of 05:34, 21 July 2011 editKeegan (talk | contribs)Administrators15,573 edits →Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments: comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:28, 11 May 2015 edit undoBerean Hunter (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users72,802 edits Archiving case to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse/Archive | ||
| (50 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude> | <noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude> | ||
| {{SPIarchive notice|Mattisse}}<br />{{SPIpriorcases}} | {{SPIarchive notice|Mattisse}}<br />{{SPIpriorcases}} | ||
| {{SPI case status|cuhold}} | |||
| =====<big>19 July 2011</big>===== | |||
| ;Suspected sockpuppets | |||
| * {{checkuser|1=SmartyBoots}} | |||
| * {{checkuser|1=CircleAdrian}} | |||
| <!-- You may duplicate the templates above ({{checkuser}} and {{checkIP}}) to list more accounts--> | |||
| * <small>''Auto-generated every hour.''</small> | |||
| (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. ] (]) 22:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| '''Clarification''': Mattisse has not asked for a return. I should have said, "planning on one". Or. Something. My bad. This whole place still gives me the willies.] (]) 01:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ======<span style="font-size:150%">Comments by other users</span>====== | |||
| <small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See ].''</small> | |||
| :{{user|CircleAdrian}} seems to have a distinctly political theme to edits, creation of ] points to them being an environmentalist. Mattisse did have some political edits but not exclusively so.--] (]): 07:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I endorse this investigation as I wish to have all socking concerns possible cleared about Mattisse in the course of her comeback.--] (]) 16:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ;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.] (]) 22:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :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.--] (]) 22:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::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.] (]) 22:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| @MuZemike, all I did was delete the IP address. I did not use my tools in any way. The IP address can be ascertained by anyone, admin or no, from the history. No chance of evading a checkuser or anything like that. I will not use my tools for anything involving Mattisse, per ]. Other admins must decide if it is a case for RevDel or oversight. Thanks for the concern, hope I've addressed.--] (]) 01:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== | |||
| *{{Endorse}} - 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. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{Admin-note}} Not speaking as a Checkuser, I'd defer this request to the Arbitration committee. ] (]) 06:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *::Why?] (]) 06:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Because it's Mattisse. I'll take a look, but will forward my results to ArbCom. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *::::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 ] and ] 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. <small>Please note that I have moved the previous 3 comments to the above section to keep this clear for clerks/CUs.</small> –] 23:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :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. –] 23:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::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. ] (]) 05:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| <!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> | |||
| ---- | |||
Latest revision as of 18:28, 11 May 2015
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: