Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ched (talk | contribs) at 03:45, 1 July 2011 (→Comments by other users: fix link ... please cease and desist this harassment. Thank you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:45, 1 July 2011 by Ched (talk | contribs) (→Comments by other users: fix link ... please cease and desist this harassment. Thank you)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

– 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:

29 June 2011
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. , , , , , , , . 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)
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)
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)
Categories: