Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mattisse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Response to point 3 of Outside view

I have never been inforrmed about any mediation. I don't believe 999 has been informed of any mediation either. I believe that unless you can show diffs of the filing users having been informed on their talk pages of the mediation, this item should be struck. —Hanuman Das 10:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As requested [1]. A note was was left on the Starwood page [2] a public place which I had hopped most interested parties would see. I've not advertised this widely as I have been waiting for a response from the mediator as to how we should approach this mediation before proceeding. --Salix alba (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check User not magic pixie dust

I'd like to note that a negative checkuser does not disprove sockpuppetry. From Help:CheckUser

  • CheckUser is not magic wiki pixie dust. Almost all queries about IPs will be because two editors were behaving the same way. An editing pattern match is the important thing; the IP match is really just extra evidence (or not).

Specifically, Check User cannot detect a user who has taken deception to the extreme of moving between two computers (say home and school or library). Editing patterns are thus more reliable means for determining sockpuppetry than Check User. A postive Check User is useful, a negative one is less so. —Hanuman Das 11:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Response. A common editting pattern of deleting rosencomet.com links is also not a reliable method of detecting sockpuppetry. There are at least two possible explanations for the common editting pattern. One possible explanation is sockpuppetry, which is the explanation you have offered. A second possible explanation is that muliple editors believe the rosencomet links are linkspam. Now it is clearly true that multiple editors believe the rosencomet links are linkspam, unless you wish to claim that all of the editors who have systematically deleted rosencomet links are sockpuppets of a single puppetmaster. --BostonMA talk 13:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
ResponseThis is bigger than and predates the simple removing of links as the evidence clearly shows if you would simply look through each edit listed. There is a much longer history of edits by Timmy12, but I will leave it to 999 to buff out the list. —Hanuman Das 14:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, the socks are all recently created accounts which immediately display a level of knowledge of Wikipedia beyond that of a new user. How many true new users start tagging articles, quoting WP:V and other policies right from the start??? I can immediately tell in this situation that neither you nor Calton are sockpuppets simply by going to your user contributions and noting that you started editing in 2005 and Calton in 2004. However, when three socks are blocked and then a couple of days later a new user appears doing exactly the same thing, one's suspicions are naturally aroused. —Hanuman Das 14:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, this RfC is not really about the removal of links. I agree that in some cases they should probably be remove, but that it should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Problem is, no one is engaging in that discussion, but just assuming they are right and reverting. No, this is about a bigger issue of targetting a particular set of articles for successive WP:POINT violations. During the tagging sprees, some articles deserves to be tagged, but just as many didn't deserve tagging. Multiple people attempted to discuss with the tagger, but both Mattisse and Timmy12 won't engage in discussion with their "opponents" except in edit comments. Take a look at the talk pages of the articles involved. Of the few in which comments were made and a response was given, there was no response to that response. No discussion has occurred. The blanket tagging of a group of articles just because it belongs to that group, or the blanket removal of citations just becuase it belongs to that group is inappropriate editting. Articles should we worked on an article-by-article basis with engaged discussion on the talk page. The disdain showed in the edit comments in not conducive to WP:AGF. When I see the people (IMO) attacking the articles engage in good faith discussion on the talk page instead of labelling as SPAM or VANDALISM, etc, then I will see that others are assuming good faith and expect that progress will be made. I haven't seen anyone on your side admit that 1) the links are indeed valid citations as Samir has stated, and 2) that maybe some of them are actually appropriate. Until that is admitted, I don't see any reason to expect your side to compromise in any way. Why should I compromise with people unwilling to do so themselves? —Hanuman Das 14:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosencomet's statement

I agree with Hanuman Das very strongly on this. I have worked hard to create and improve articles, learning the correct protocols as I worked. I feel that I have been stalked, and that the methods of Matisse and Timmy12 are virtually identical. I have asked for advice (and received a good deal of help) on any improper activities I might have engaged in through inexperience, and I believe my articles have been improved thereby. In almost every case, when the issue has gone to a higher voice, my position has been upheld; and when it has not, I have changed my work inaccordance with instructions.

On the other hand, those deleting and/or reverting my work have usually ignored any attempts to engage in real dialog about them.

Please reread this comment on your talk page. --BostonMA talk 13:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

When they have been told that their basis for deletion was wrong, and the proper protocols were quoted, they did not stop deletions and other interference. Although I realize we are supposed to assume good faith of others, I find it hard to do so under these circumstances. It seems to me that these individuals are not judging whether the work is proper or appropriate, but have formed some opinion of my motivation and are determined to use any excuse, or none at all, to sabotage this work. Such opinions should, IMO, be irrelevant: either a citation is used correctly or it isn't.

This by no means includes every criticism these articles have had, nor every source, but those of Matisse & Timmy12 are certainly prominant, and I understand that these articles are not the only ones they have treated in this fashion. There are a couple other names that might belong in this conversation, but I am not sure whether adding them would be appropriate here, never having participated in one of these discussions. I do know that when I make a statement, it is challenged as uncited. When I cite it, the citation is taken down and I am accused of linkspam. When someone quotes the reasons it is NOT linkspam, it is ignored. When a fact requires more than one citation, I'm told there are too many. When I use a single link to a search engine page containing all necessary citations, it's called a "disguised link" and taken down. Recently, I've gotten requests for "3rd party citations", but I can't find any such requirement in Wiki rules, nor does this seem to be a general requirement among others.

I'd certainly like to continue to create and improve articles and make them complete and properly cited, and some of the regular, knowledgable, helpful Wiki folks seem to believe I am doing just that, and a better job of it since I began posting in August. But I am quite tired of having to review every article I work on to deal with folks reverting or removing citations that were mostly created to satisfy or prevent tags saying the facts were not cited. And all of them seem to come from a very short list of people reviewing every item I touch and reverting the work, with no comment except an occasional insult or accusation. Samir has weighed in on this, but his input, it seems, has been ignored as well. Rosencomet 23:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No comment on the rest, with which I am unfamiliar, but, upon review of the relevant articles, I think that mentions of (and subsequent references to) the Starwood festival are being added to too many articles -- Samir धर्म 05:55, 12 November 2006 Whoops, I guess he DID weight in.
But I am quite tired of having to review every article I work on to deal with folks reverting or removing citations that were mostly created to satisfy or prevent tags saying the facts were not cited. You're dealing in irrelevancies: I'm removing obvious spam. Blowing smoke about your martyrdom doesn't make the spam less obvious. --Calton | Talk 06:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by BostonMA

According to [[WP:RfC]

"The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it."

Is User:Ekajati certifying this RfC? --BostonMA talk 00:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, it says that those certifying must have tried to resolve it. It does not say that those who tried to resolve it must certify it. Whether she endorses it is up to her. Please also note that users are ONLY TO EDIT the section they certified and that all DISCUSSION should take place on the talk page. —Hanuman Das 00:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view or Response

I have never participated in an RFC before so forgive me if this is a stupid question. But how does one decide whether something is an outside view or a response? It seems to me the outside view by Salix alba, while clearly an outside view, would also fit under response Nil Einne 06:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it has been moved from outside view to response (by me) and back again (by Hanuman Das). --Salix alba (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Response would be written by Mattisse. —Hanuman Das 14:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
From the boilerplate text:
Response: This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.
so technically it could count as a response. Hopefully things are clear enough as they stand. --Salix alba (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to proceed?

I think we've probably reached an empas with this RfC. There has now been some communication between User:Hanuman Das and User:Mattisse which is good, and has cleared the air somewhat. It might be an idea to write a summary of current status. --Salix alba (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest the RfC has clearly demonstrated a consensus that Mattisse's actions were not a violation of policy. Addhoc 20:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Except that the sockpuppetry has not been commented on by anyone. Regardless of whether the tagging, etc. was correct, there was still an attempt to give the appearance of more support on talk pages for the necessity of the very links that Mattisse is now disputing. While the socks individually may not have violated policy, together they violated several points of WP:SOCK, namely: Voting and other shows of support (mostly the latter, but some vote stacking was done), Avoiding scrutiny from other editors, "Good hand, bad hand" accounts. That is 3 out of 4 of the actions descibed as abusive (obviously the fifth would not apply, as Mattisse is not an admin). There is also the unaddressed problem of the creation of three sockpuppets the day after agreeing not to use socks with an admin. Are you and the other respondents condoning these actions? Is it now permissable to use sockpuppets for such activities simply because one happens to be (or think one is) in the right? —Hanuman Das 03:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You appear either, not to understand the RfC process, or possibly, are unable to accept the result... Addhoc 11:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I understand the result alright. I will consider it permission to use sockpuppets in the very same way. And if anyone complains, I will point to this RfC as a ruling. Cheerio! —Hanuman Das 13:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Me, too. I completely agree with Hanuman Das. That's exactly what it means. —Danuman Has 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Ummm... bad plan, man. I mean, you're entitled to do as you like, and I understand that you're frustrated by the current state of affairs, but I don't think this is going to help your cause in the long run.
Septegram 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Starwood

Since some of the charges against User:Mattisse were about disputed edits concerning the Starwood Festival, I think it's worth mentioning that there is a Request for Comment on Starwood links in progress at the moment. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 03:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing RfC

I opened this RfC. I've looked for a process for closing it, but couldn't find one. How do I do so? —Hanuman Das 01:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. —Hanuman Das 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_comment_Mattisse_157f.html"