User:Mattisse//Ars Scriptor & Aguerriero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


PPLEASE DO NOT ALLOWW JEFFERSON ANDERSON TO DELETE ANY OF MY PAGES]

Ars Scriptor used to be Aguerriero: Uncited template discussion on October 23 [1] --On ARS Scriptor's page December 7--

Contents

[edit] Mattisse

I should like to bring this to your attention. If'd you'd like to discuss, let's do it on User talk:CheNuevara, okay? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) -- A sock tagging --

Howdy, you may not remember this, but I'm trying to track down information on why Flinders (talk · contribs) was tagged as a sock of Mattisse (talk · contribs). Was there a RFCU to back this up? The RFCU for Mattisse does not list or confirm this account, and there is no RFCU for Flinders. --Ars Scriptor 15:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Rdsmith4 (talk • contribs) ran the CheckUser. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mattisse redux

I'm sure many of you are familiar with the interesting history of Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who has been criticized for mass tagging sprees, not the least of which is connected to a great number of articles created by Rosencomet (talk · contribs) and involving the Starwood Festival. Mattisse has been subject to many checkuser cases, some of which are documented here, which resulted in a block, here, and here, which resulted in a longer block (1 week) for inappropriate uses of sockpuppets.

Well, an RfC and a mediation case are still ongoing regarding Rosencomet and the Starwood Festival articles. It was recently brought to my attention that Mattisse approached another user involved in the disputes, complaining about an article that one of Mattisse's own confirmed socks created, apparently as a device to discredit other parties in the mediation and create an impression of impropriety. I feel this action warrants a longer block. Thoughts? --Ars Scriptor 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm advocating for Matisse, my only comment is that Matisse was asking Paul Pigman what should be done with the article and wasn't really complaining, just asking for advice. As it happens, I've prodded the article. Addhoc 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
However, Matisse should learn that 'It wasn't me, it was my granddaughter' only works as a sockpuppetry excuse once and is a poor one the first time. I hope she has learned better sense. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope, same excuse given here. —Hanuman Das 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mattisse - hoping for a second opinion on whether a block is warranted here

Regarding your comment here, I was hoping for a second opinion on whether a block is warranted here. While technically no "new" abuse of sockpuppets occurred, I feel that Mattisse brought up that article in order to create a disruption. She knows that parties involved in the disputes are monitoring other participants' talk pages, and she knows that posting that link would draw more negative attention to the Starwood articles. I don't know if she actually forget she wrote it, or if she thought no one would notice, but I personally have seen enough of editors' time wasted on the entire matter. --Ars Scriptor 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize that no new abuse of sockpuppets has occurred. The actions taken under the Flinders account are in the past. However, I seriously question the motives of Mattisse in suddenly posting about an article that the Flinders account created. Mattisse has to know that everyone has the Talk pages watchlisted of everyone involved in this, and would see the post. If anything, I would expect that she would want the matter forgotten.

  • My gut feeling is that Mattisse intended to cause a disruption by posting about the article.

--Ars Scriptor 00:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starwood

--from Hanuman Das on December 4 Saw you note on Mattisse's page. Not sure why this is being discussed as it appear everything has been resolved in mediation. There is general agreement to remove the links to rosencomet.com, even from Rosencomet. Mediation has worked. I find it in very bad form to suggest "withdrawing" a mediation request, especially when it is working. If Salix Alba does withdraw it, I will reopen it myself, so don't bother. —Hanuman Das 02:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for letting me know

--from me to Ars Scriptor on December 4-- Mostly I've been feeling like an object here, an excuse for everyone to give their opinions but not someone to take seriously. So I thank you for letting me kmow what is going on, and for realizing I am an actual person trying to take Wikipedia seriously. What you propose seems clear cut. If it will end all this once and for all, one way or the other, I am all for it. My life has come to a halt the way things stand now and I would like to resume it. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Mediation

--From me to Ars Scriptor November 21--Muhammad

Just want to say that I had a prejudice against you because of your affilicaiion with Anger22 and that person's flippant and arrogant manner towards me. But I have been watching your mediation of the image issue and must be admiring of the way you are handling it. You appear to be very good at what you do. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 04:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

--Under Old name October Archive-- Ars Scriptor used to be Aguerriero --On ARS Scriptor's page December 7--

[edit] Mattisse

I should like to bring this to your attention. If'd you'd like to discuss, let's do it on User talk:CheNuevara, okay? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) -- A sock tagging --

Howdy, you may not remember this, but I'm trying to track down information on why Flinders (talk · contribs) was tagged as a sock of Mattisse (talk · contribs). Was there a RFCU to back this up? The RFCU for Mattisse does not list or confirm this account, and there is no RFCU for Flinders. --Ars Scriptor 15:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Rdsmith4 (talk • contribs) ran the CheckUser. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mattisse redux

I'm sure many of you are familiar with the interesting history of Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who has been criticized for mass tagging sprees, not the least of which is connected to a great number of articles created by Rosencomet (talk · contribs) and involving the Starwood Festival. Mattisse has been subject to many checkuser cases, some of which are documented here, which resulted in a block, here, and here, which resulted in a longer block (1 week) for inappropriate uses of sockpuppets.

Well, an RfC and a mediation case are still ongoing regarding Rosencomet and the Starwood Festival articles. It was recently brought to my attention that Mattisse approached another user involved in the disputes, complaining about an article that one of Mattisse's own confirmed socks created, apparently as a device to discredit other parties in the mediation and create an impression of impropriety. I feel this action warrants a longer block. Thoughts? --Ars Scriptor 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm advocating for Matisse, my only comment is that Matisse was asking Paul Pigman what should be done with the article and wasn't really complaining, just asking for advice. As it happens, I've prodded the article. Addhoc 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
However, Matisse should learn that 'It wasn't me, it was my granddaughter' only works as a sockpuppetry excuse once and is a poor one the first time. I hope she has learned better sense. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope, same excuse given here. —Hanuman Das 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mattisse - hoping for a second opinion on whether a block is warranted here

Regarding your comment here, I was hoping for a second opinion on whether a block is warranted here. While technically no "new" abuse of sockpuppets occurred, I feel that Mattisse brought up that article in order to create a disruption. She knows that parties involved in the disputes are monitoring other participants' talk pages, and she knows that posting that link would draw more negative attention to the Starwood articles. I don't know if she actually forget she wrote it, or if she thought no one would notice, but I personally have seen enough of editors' time wasted on the entire matter. --Ars Scriptor 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize that no new abuse of sockpuppets has occurred. The actions taken under the Flinders account are in the past. However, I seriously question the motives of Mattisse in suddenly posting about an article that the Flinders account created. Mattisse has to know that everyone has the Talk pages watchlisted of everyone involved in this, and would see the post. If anything, I would expect that she would want the matter forgotten.

  • My gut feeling is that Mattisse intended to cause a disruption by posting about the article.

--Ars Scriptor 00:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starwood

--from Hanuman Das on December 4 Saw you note on Mattisse's page. Not sure why this is being discussed as it appear everything has been resolved in mediation. There is general agreement to remove the links to rosencomet.com, even from Rosencomet. Mediation has worked. I find it in very bad form to suggest "withdrawing" a mediation request, especially when it is working. If Salix Alba does withdraw it, I will reopen it myself, so don't bother. —Hanuman Das 02:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for letting me know

--from me to Ars Scriptor on December 4-- Mostly I've been feeling like an object here, an excuse for everyone to give their opinions but not someone to take seriously. So I thank you for letting me kmow what is going on, and for realizing I am an actual person trying to take Wikipedia seriously. What you propose seems clear cut. If it will end all this once and for all, one way or the other, I am all for it. My life has come to a halt the way things stand now and I would like to resume it. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC) --Re. Mediation-- --From me to Ars Scriptor November 21--Muhammad

Just want to say that I had a prejudice against you because of your affilicaiion with Anger22 and that person's flippant and arrogant manner towards me. But I have been watching your mediation of the image issue and must be admiring of the way you are handling it. You appear to be very good at what you do. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 04:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Under Old name October Archive

[edit] Mattisse

Do be aware that this is not the first time Mattisse has gone on a tagging spree. The first time she tagged every article listed in Starwood Festival. She then created multiple sockpuppets to continue tagging the same set of articles. Several of us suspect that Timmy12 is a sockpuppet being used by Mattisse to do such tagging now. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that whole list of restrictions, etc. on checkuser is completely intimidating. I would prefer if this came to the attention of an admin who could file the checkuser. I noticed that Hanuman Das tried to open a sockpuppetry case on it Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd) but got shot down, even though there are two similar earlier complaints that got confirmed: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse & Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (2nd). Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
There was a Sockpuppet check which was closed as not similar enough to demonstrate a sockpuppet relationship. --Salix alba (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, AFAIK, a checkuser has never been done. After reading all the restrictions on the use of checkuser, I prefer for an admin to file the request. The users in question seem to think that my pointing out the similarity of pattern between the two users modus operandi plus the overlap in the articles targeted is harrassment. Can an admin please follow up on doing a checkuser and/or looking into this further? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
If you think so. I am surprised that someone who has a history involving 18 sockpuppets over three different incidents has not been indefinitely blocked. How many times do you have to be warned and have sockpuppets blocked before it becomes "serious"? The second incident involved stacking of AfDs, apparently. Why is this user still free to continue this activity? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 21:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's the stacked AfD: [2]. No less than 5 of Mattisse's confirmed socks voted or commented on it: Mattisse, GBYork, NLOleson, Gjeatman. and AgastNeey - although I guess they didn't stack the vote as it looks like they cancel each other out...but there were other single-purpose accounts likely to have been the same user. The article had to be undeleted, the AfD reopened, and the article ended up being kept w/o Mattisse's interference. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mattisse

I unblocked following an e-mail promising not to repeat the sockpuppetry. I don't know anything about the current situation, but if she has been sockpuppeting again, I would suggest a lengthy block. — Dan | talk 23:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timmy12/Mattisse

Could you add the observation that Timmy12 complained that his tags were being reverted by you and Notinasnaid when in actuallity you reverted Mattisse's comments to this request for checkuser. That is extremely strong evidence that Timmy12 is a sockpuppet. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You didn't sign your addition so I put an "unsigned" template on it... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mattisse

Do be aware that this is not the first time Mattisse has gone on a tagging spree. The first time she tagged every article listed in Starwood Festival. She then created multiple sockpuppets to continue tagging the same set of articles. Several of us suspect that Timmy12 is a sockpuppet being used by Mattisse to do such tagging now. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that whole list of restrictions, etc. on checkuser is completely intimidating. I would prefer if this came to the attention of an admin who could file the checkuser. I noticed that Hanuman Das tried to open a sockpuppetry case on it Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd) but got shot down, even though there are two similar earlier complaints that got confirmed: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse & Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (2nd). Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
There was a Sockpuppet check which was closed as not similar enough to demonstrate a sockpuppet relationship. --Salix alba (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, AFAIK, a checkuser has never been done. After reading all the restrictions on the use of checkuser, I prefer for an admin to file the request. The users in question seem to think that my pointing out the similarity of pattern between the two users modus operandi plus the overlap in the articles targeted is harrassment. Can an admin please follow up on doing a checkuser and/or looking into this further? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
If you think so. I am surprised that someone who has a history involving 18 sockpuppets over three different incidents has not been indefinitely blocked. How many times do you have to be warned and have sockpuppets blocked before it becomes "serious"? The second incident involved stacking of AfDs, apparently. Why is this user still free to continue this activity? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 21:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's the stacked AfD: [3]. No less than 5 of Mattisse's confirmed socks voted or commented on it: Mattisse, GBYork, NLOleson, Gjeatman. and AgastNeey - although I guess they didn't stack the vote as it looks like they cancel each other out...but there were other single-purpose accounts likely to have been the same user. The article had to be undeleted, the AfD reopened, and the article ended up being kept w/o Mattisse's interference. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mattisse

I unblocked following an e-mail promising not to repeat the sockpuppetry. I don't know anything about the current situation, but if she has been sockpuppeting again, I would suggest a lengthy block. — Dan | talk 23:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timmy12/Mattisse

Could you add the observation that Timmy12 complained that his tags were being reverted by you and Notinasnaid when in actuallity you reverted Mattisse's comments to this request for checkuser. That is extremely strong evidence that Timmy12 is a sockpuppet. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You didn't sign your addition so I put an "unsigned" template on it... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My replies

-- watchlist --

Maybe you could explain that. Yesterday BostonMA was horrible shocked, even he, that a question he insisted I answer was used in such a way. This is the fourth time he has accidently done me in by AGF. It is changing his view of people here by seeing how they use watchlists against me.

(copy from message to Boston) Why I stopped editing India articles (yesterday someone showed me how to use "diffs") These edits were done within minutes of each other (or so) to articles I had just edited. A couple are to article's editor's talk page explaining how awful I was. I got a message from one of them, who suspected something was up. That's how I started to catch on. That person was the 3rd one to sign the RFC supporting me.

  • November 9
  • [4]Peggy Sue
  • [5]Tom Collier
  • [6]Sivasamudram
  • [7]Ruthless
  • [8]The Coasters
  • [9]Sivasamudram
  • [10]user Wahkeenah - editor of Peggy Sue
  • [11]Peggy Sue
  • [12]Sivasamudram Falls
  • [13]Shavanasamudra
  • [14]Razor
  • [15]user Wahkeenah -editor Peggy Sue
  • [16]user Wahkeenah - editor Peggy Sue
  • [17]user AdelaMae - signed my RFC in my favor
  • [18]- Personal attack on me by User:Hanuman Das

In the above case, 999 tagged four India related articles I had created for Dinesh with citation and merge and other tags within minutes. I thought I was going crazy. Boston believed it was just a coincidence that 999 had tagged the India articles and I couldn't convince him otherwise at the time. How does 999 do this? How does he know? He sits on the recent changes list just waiting for me? Maybe so, as that was the day Hanuman Das told me to shove a razor up my ass.

My watchlist has 2300 and some articles on it. Articles that I have edited. There are no articles on there I have not edited. The only people on my watchlist are people I have posted to. Every once in a while I try to purge the list. One day I removed 1000 watch items. Is that not a normal use of the watchlist? What are they accusing me of? The only way a Starwood article gets on that list is if I come across it in a different context and edit for some reason. What is the correct way to use a watchlist?

Musart is not on my watchlist. Because I edit so many music article and check links, I discovered, for example, that on the Latin pop chart, famous artists were linked to that article. I googled the companies and wrote the Musart Records article and tried to correct the links on all the artist/albums articles. But Musart did not come up on my watch list, Musart Records did. Anyone could check that I believe. Thank you, Sincrely, Mattisse 20:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry. I should not have asked you about this. If you scroll down on this[19] you will see that you were involved in a similar discussion on my talk page using your other name under the title "Uncited Template". Since I looked through the history of the article in question, Robert Johnson, and the only edit you have made was to revert my citation tag, it appears you were acting on Anger22's behalf and on incorrect information, as you apologised to User:TomTheHand and my citation tag was returned. I did not use the best judgment in asking you this question on Peggy Sue. Sorry for my mistake. Sincerely, Mattisse 12:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I figured out a more direct link to above discussion:[20] Sincerely, Mattisse 13:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) The above "Uncited Template" discussion took place on October 23. On October 24 the following (related?) discussions took place:

  1. ANI "How to handle this situation - advice needed[21]
  2. ANI Reverting or removing tags without fixing the problem[22]On this one you also weigh in against me when you had no involvement with me before besides you abrupt entrance on my talk page the day before. (It was Anger 22 who reverted Robert Johnson and on articles that I went to ANI about.) I tried to have a civil discussion on Anger22 talk page[23] but she ended up by saying screw it, I wasted time trying to rehabilitate a troll to you.
  3. ANI "Citation Need" on John Lee Hooker [24]

Ekajaki had asked Anger22 to put me on her black watch list which Anger22 did [25] and so she automatically reverted anything I did until I filed that complaint. However, because of all this, later when I tried to improve the John Lee Hooker article (which was inaccurate in many places and skipped over much of his importance to the history of music) I encountered severe resistance from Sir Issac, who apparently owns the article. Aside from the Starwood group and Anger22 and those they have insitigated, I have encountered hardly any resistance. One person who argued against me above, later gave me a Barnstar. Many people thank me. So to portray me in the light you did is unwarranted. Unless you go through my 14,000 edits, or whatever, and have evidence for the stands you take against me instead of just believing the gossip of a few, I cannot trust your judgment based on you past behavior. (I believe it was the same group that instigated your recent ANI complaint against me.) Sorry, I need a friend and want to trust you but I don't see how I can. (If you would prove me wrong I would be wonderfully happy.) Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 14:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[26] I will spend the day, if necessary, tracking down your prior interest in harming me here, since you never discussed anything constructively with me but seem to be very active behind the scenes. I urge you to recuse yourself from this case as biased. (I was I who said that those who learn to use diffs have an advantage. Well, I am learning!) Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 14:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not remove tag on Robert Johnson without fixing the problem.

Please do not remove it. That article has existed since at least April 2004 without proper sourcing. The tag will not harm the article in any way and will most likely result in Benefit as people see the tag and put effort into fixing it. Removing tags without fixing the problem constitutes vandalism, according to Wikipedia. [27] Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 21:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Morven

--Mattisse--

Regarding your comment here, I was hoping for a second opinion on whether a block is warranted here. While technically no "new" abuse of sockpuppets occurred, I feel that Mattisse brought up that article in order to create a disruption. She knows that parties involved in the disputes are monitoring other participants' talk pages, and she knows that posting that link would draw more negative attention to the Starwood articles. I don't know if she actually forget she wrote it, or if she thought no one would notice, but I personally have seen enough of editors' time wasted on the entire matter. --Ars Scriptor 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)