Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (4th)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Mattisse (4th)

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Rosencomet 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Report submission by


 * Evidence

1. A Checkuser was run by an arbitrator who reported that User:Mattisse, User:BackMaun and User:Alien666 "all share an IP address from time to time".Rosencomet 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

2. All three editors and User:RasputinJSvengali have engaged in conflict with the same other editors on several of the same articles. BackMaun has referred to these same targetted editors and these conflicts on the talk pages of both these and other editors in an uncivil manner. Rosencomet 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

3. Each has an edit history that indicates stalking of editors with historical conflicts with User:Mattisse and sockpuppets used by her; she has been asked numerous times what connection exists among them but has refused to answer. Rosencomet 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

4. Mattisse has been a major opponent of at least two of the targetted editors in question during several mediations and an arbitration, has attacked their reputation on the talk pages of several arbitrators, and has created several pages of "collected evidence" against them. Rosencomet 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

5. Mattisse has a documented history of using no less than 18 sockpuppets over a period of five months, several in relation to these same editors, engaging in tagging sprees, revert wars, vote-stacking, and in some cases using them to create fake articles and attribute them to another editor. , (2nd) Rosencomet 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments

(Moved from Evidence section: regarding points 2 through 5)

Note: please provide diffs for Mattisse's role, preferably less than 10 month old. Mattisse 05:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments

I felt I had to begin this process ASAP since none of the arbitrators I spoke to had done so, and I did not want to be told that it was too late to run further checkusers on the users in question. Mattisse has been editing today, and BackMaun as recently as April 21st, 2007.Rosencomet 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The previous sockpuppets they we active in august and september 2006. Since then no sockpuppets have been identified. Other acusations sinnce then have be found to be negative. Mattisse has admitted to previous use of sockpuppets and has stated that she no longer has been using sockpuppets.
 * See also Requests for arbitration/Starwood where both Mattisse and Rosencomet were participants. --Salix alba (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments

Although I searched and failed to find the proper diffs on Thatcher131's page, I am forced to copy what was there (probably against the rules and I will be punished}. This is from an ANI posting by my mediator at the time, one piece of evidence that I did indeed try to explain the grandchildren sitation and the ridicule that followed did not encourage a more forthright discussion of the "granny defense" as it is now known as.

Mattisse redux
I'm sure many of you are familiar with the interesting history of, who has been criticized for mass tagging sprees, not the least of which is connected to a great number of articles created by 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. &mdash;Hanuman Das 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments

Please provide example of anyone using the phrase "the granny defense" other than Mattisse. Rosencomet 18:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions
Mattisse uses a different computer and provider than Backmaun does, but they are in the same large city. Information on the other two was unavailable. Fred Bauder 22:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the evidence is reasonably convincing that BackMaun, Alien and Rasputin are sockpuppets of each other, and that their main purpose is to harass Jefferson Anderson and Rosencomet. I have indefinitely blocked all three accounts.  Regarding Mattisse, it is possible that she is using two computers and two ISPs to mask her activities, but it is also possible that she is the unfortunate victim of a coincidence, that someone else with a grudge against Jefferson Anderson lives in the same city.  (As such, please do not tag the accounts as Mattisse sockpuppets.)  I have sent Mattisse an e-mail about this, and it is my hope that all parties will be able to move forward without further drama.  Time will tell. Thatcher131 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I greatly appreciate this action by Thatcher131 to prevent further harassment, which is by far the most important reason I opened this case. It is difficult to put past unpleasantness aside if it is not truly past. My other purpose was simply to arrive at the truth of the matter, and if both Fred Bauder and Thatcher131 have determined that we have gone as far as we can in that direction from a technical point of view, I have no basis on which to disagree. I ask them only to keep an eye on the issue in the future. Rosencomet 18:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like as much has been done as can be, but please report back with any additional problems. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)