User:Mattisse//Ghe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

[edit] Mattisse

I'm not sure what's going on here, but I feel that I must point this out as it is relevant to the Starwood mediation. Please take a look at this comment by Mattisse to Paul Pigman. It looks innocent enough, but to one who knows the history of Mattisse's abuse of sockpuppets, it is clearly a disingenuous comment. The article was started by Flinders, who was shown by CheckUser to be a sockpuppet of Mattisse by User:Rdsmith4. At that time, sockpuppets of Mattisse created several hoax articles intended to discredit the other Starwood articles. Another two were Anne Hill and Ann Hill. To now bring this article to the attention of Paul Pigman as if it had been created by Rosencomet as part of the Starwood set of articles is clearly manipulatory. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't see any place where this was confirmed by a CheckUser. I see that Netsnipe tagged Flinders as a sock, but where is that backed up? The RFCU for Mattisse did not list Flinders as a possible sock. There is no RFCU for Flinders. Please point me in the right direction. --Ars Scriptor 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, I found it. --Ars Scriptor 15:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


I find this to be rather bizarre, and a good example of how the folks on the other side of this issue have had a pattern of manipulating things either for their own amusement or to put the actual editors of the articles in question in a bad light. I had nothing to do with the Musart article, which was created by "Flinders", apparently a sock-puppet. He/she also created the Ann Hill & Anne Hill articles, claiming she was a "frequent speaker at the Starwood Festival" (she exists, but has never appeared at Starwood). At one point the name Anne Rice was changed to Anne Hill. (Someone also accused me of linking to and messing with the Andrew Cohen article, though as far as I know it was never linked to the Starwood page, nor did he appear there.)
I'm not saying Musart isn't deserving of an article, and I could create one, but this one had only two facts that were not false: the very first line ("Musart is a musical art company founded by Muruga Booker."), and the links to the Musart website. (Pigman, oddly enough, just took down those links.) The rest of the article seems to be a cut & paste job from part of the Starwood Festival article as it stood at the time of the Musart's article's creation. (Muruga Booker actually asked me about it in a conversation 2 days ago, assuming I had created it, and wondered why the content was so very wrong.) This kind of behavior - fake articles linked to Starwood, constant demands for citations, subsequent accusations that the citations constituted linkspam and google-bombing - all seems to have started with Matisse just 7 days after my first contribution to a Wikipedia article. Rosencomet 17:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Rosencomet, let us assume for the moment that someone has "manipulat[ed] things either for their own amusement or to put the actual editors of the articles in question in a bad light." Would that mean that all of "the folks on the other side of this issue have had a pattern of" doing so? Your comment seems to insinuate that "the folks on the other side of the issue" are all bad people, therefore, the points that they raise should be discounted. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite right. I should have said "some of the folks". It's just so confusing not knowing who is a sock and/or egged on to weigh in by others. But admittedly, I was generalizing. And I never called them "bad people"; they might be good people who, in this instance, were engaging in bad behavior. Rosencomet 18:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. In the interest of transparency, can you (Ars Scriptor) post a link?
  2. I do not have the mechanisms to deal with previous user conduct. All I can do is insist that all users act appropriately from now on. If all users do so, then we should have no further problems. If some users act inappropriately, then other channels can be sought. Now that I've been supplied with this background information, let's focus on forward movement. - Che Nuevara 19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry this is on your talk page. I support CheNuevara's first point particularly. While the RfC/Mattisse contained a number of accusations of sockpuppets, it was unclear to me which of these were actually confirmed. I know at least one was. Am I just not reading closely enough? --Pigman (talk • contribs) 20:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
There was never a formal checkuser request. The sockpuppetry was discovered sort of accidently by an admin with CheckUser privileges while investigating an unrelated issue. The only report was a notice by that user to Mattisse the use of socks had been detected: here. I agree with Ekajati that this IS a current behavior issue. While the created of the faked page occured in the past, bringing it up just occured recently. —Hanuman Das 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. I agree that it is an issue, and I will keep an eye out and keep it in mind. However, until I see something that looks disruptive or in bad faith, there isn't a whole lot I can do. - Che 20:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)