User talk:Thatcher/Archive12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Thatcher131/Piggybank

user MarshallBagramyan

I would like to draw your attention to user:MarshallBagramyan. He is engaged in massive rv's on Azerbaijan-Armenia related page. On page Armenian Revolutionary Federation he removed text with 5 refrences without any discussion and moreover threatened to report me to Arbcom [1]. I was already once insulted on that page by other users which was a part of Arbcom consideration.--Dacy69 14:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Give it a break Dacy, you're fooling no one. What is the purpose of wording an article (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) like this "Armenian pro-Bolshevik scholar Papazian noted in this regard that many Armenians get tired of the ARF who terrorized their own people, extorting money from wealthy Armenians or this Dashkov noted that ARF bore a major portion of responsibilities for perpatrating the massacres. Their bands would attack the Muslim and often exterminate the population of entire villages. Exterminate villages? as in genocide? as in cleansing people from their homes all organized by one fringe political party? Talk about falsification of history....
These are purely POV edits supported by obscure sources and complaining to the admins is only hurting your case.
Thatch, this is precisely what I was telling you about: Dacy deliberately words the article in this manner and naturally, an Armenian user must come revert him. I threatened to report him because its edits like this that continually hinder any attempts for reconciliation. He always has something negative he has to add. --MarshallBagramyan 16:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I almost word by word quoted sources - so it is not my POV. Moreover, it is not obscure sources - it is primary sources. Besides you have removed others and failed to make explanation on talkpage. I gave an offer for content dispute, and wait for responses on talkpage. But you again use inappropriate language.--Dacy69 19:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Marshal is not part of the case, and I really don't know enough about the situation to judge content (and that is not a proper admin role anyway). You will have to try the dispute resolution process, perhaps a request for comment or third opinion] to start. I see a lot of talking on the talk page but not much evidence that either side is listening. If he behavior persists and you can get some support for your attempted edits you can try and bring a new case. Thatcher131 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I filed RfC per your advise. Unfortunately, --MarshallBagramyan continue to make personal attack on contrubutor - you can read the end of this message [2], rather on concentrating on dispute content. I will continue developing arguments for RfC but I don't expect that opponents will be willing to work towards solution, taking into account continued attacks.--Dacy69 14:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

this is a new one [3] - how I am supposed to work when I am constantly under attacks.--Dacy69 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

and just came from user:Fedayee [4] - only personal attack - no discussion of the content--Dacy69 21:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

See my answer here. Thatcher131 14:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it was a serious mistake that arbcom did not place Marshall on a revert parole as well. He takes advantage of other people being on parole and blindly reverts their contributions. You are familiar with his behavior on Armenian Revolutionary Federation article, but today he made 3 rvs to undo my edits to Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan article, which in my opinion constitutes enough ground for block for edit warring. [5] [6] [7] As usual, Marshall ignores sources that do not correspond with his vision of the facts, and keeps article to certain version. He even reverted tags that I attached to demonstrate that the factual accuracy of the article is disputed. I don’t think that this is an appropriate behavior, considering the latest arbcom decision, which found edit warring on Azerbaijan – Armenian related articles unacceptable and disruptive for Wikipedia. Grandmaster 16:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* Thatch, I am honestly exasperated of seeing these reports. None of the users who have problems with me exhaust the talk page and after one slight disagreement, where there is no serious attempt to remedy the situation, it's off to admins. to complain about my "problematic behavior". What I could see is that my revert was fully justified from the previous discussions at the Nakhichevan page. I have collected the sources which were cited in the Nakhichevan talk page which include but are not limited to:

  • An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires by James S. Olson, Lee Brigance Pappas, Nicholas C. J. Pappas
  • The Armenians and the East India Company in Persia in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries by R. W. Ferrier, The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1973)
  • Shah 'Abbas and the Royal Silk Trade 1599-1629 by Linda K. Steinmann, Vol. 14, No. 1 (1987)
  • The Shah's Silk for Europe's Silver: The Eurasian Trade of the Julfa Armenians in Safavid Iran and India (1530-1750) by Ina Baghdiantz McCabe
  • A Seventeenth-Century Typological Cycle of Paintings in the Armenian cathedal at Julfa by T. S. R. Boase, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 13, No. ¾, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London (D.M. Lang review), Vol. 32, No. 3 (1969)
  • The Status of Religious Minorities in Safavid Iran 1617-61, Vera B. Moreen, Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 40, No. 2 (April 1981)
  • Alexander the First, a Reappraisal A Reappraisal Second by Ludmila Evreinov and Democracy and Nationalism in Armenia, Peter Rutland, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 46, No. 5 (1994)
  • The Alteration of Place Names and the Construction of National Identity in Soviet Armenia, Cahiers du monde russe, 44/1, by Arseny Saparov [8], Georgia and the Fall of the Safavī Dynasty, D. M. Lang, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 14, No. 3, Studies Presented to Vladimir Minorsky by His Colleagues and Friends (1952)

Those sources supported what was is said about the Armenians in Nakhichevan in the 1600 period. For some reason, they are insufficent for Grandmaster.

My second revert was here: [9] Grandmaster added the word “allegedly” in regards to the Armenian monuments and removed the word “alleged” for the destruction of Azerbaijani monuments claiming that it was part of the original quote. But alas, there are no quotation marks since it is in my own wording and no actual support of the statement by the statesmen in the respective article Is this a good faith edit?

The article which I wrote presents the destruction of the Khachkars as a position not as a fact, and Grandmaster removed the term “alleged” for the claims of destruction of Azerbaijani monuments, preferring to present it as truth in the Khachkar article which doesn’t even present the destruction of Khachkars as truth. Grandmaster also removed other pieces of info without discussion [10] and yet he criticized for my revert of Dacy69's edit, for something which was already discussed in the past while here, he removes something without even going to the talk page.

The removal of the template questioning the article is justified; GM's reason for adding it has more to do with the fact that he opposes the fact that those Khachkars were destroyed, which is an inadequate reason to have it there.--MarshallBagramyan 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply I think Marshall's behavior is within acceptable limits at Khachkar_destruction_in_Nakhichevan, however I question why there are two articles Khachkar_destruction_in_Nakhichevan and Khachkar_destruction which deal with exactly the same cemetery. If the various editors here can't work on one version together I will be happy to ban all of you for a month and turn the article over to someone else to integrate the two. If the point is that there was mass destruction of khachkars at a particular cemetery allegedly with the collusion of the Azerbaijan government and also allegations that Armenians are also destroying khachkars for economic purposes, these two things can both be accomodated in one article and having two just so you don't bump into each other is pointless. Thatcher131 01:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
There are two similar articles because Marshall created Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan as a POV fork to the existing article Khachkar destruction. The article Khachkar destruction was nominated for deletion twice, and both times the result of RfCs was to keep. See: [11] [12] After that Marshall created Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan to avoid mentioning any destruction in Armenia. The admins warned not to move or delete or renominate the article until June. [13] So the opinions of other admins and results of 2 RfCs should be honored, and POV forks removed. Grandmaster 04:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Also note that we have another identical article here: Julfa,_Azerbaijan_(city) I don’t know what the point in creation of so many articles on the same topic is, but I think it should be limited to 1 article to avoid repetition. Grandmaster 06:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a fork and I never intended it to be one. You stated that the article "Khachkar Destruction" encompassed the destruction of khachkars regardless of their location. Fine with me, and that's why it doesn't have to cover the destruction in Nakhichevan in such great detail. The distinction is like an article on Hurricanes and Hurricane Katrina, one focuses on hurricanes in general whereas the other focuses on a particular hurricane. GM's flip flopping on whether or not to keep the Khachkar Destruction article can be found in the AFDs. First GM was opposed to it because it was only on Nakhichevan but then voiced support for it once it included Armenians mismanaging their own khachkars (something AdilBaguirov cleverly exploited in the midst of the two nominations); it goes double for Dacy and the other users who made sudden about faces when they no longer wanted the article to disappear.

So now we're stuck with two articles. The name of the first article was supposed to be "Khachkar Destruction in Nakhichevan" but because the user who created it left out the last two words, Adil took advantage of this and decided to add two Armenian sources that don't even support a thesis that the khachkars are being destroyed: moved, yes, mismanaged, yes, desecrated by ignorant youth, yes; but just because their end result ended up in some khachkars being damaged does not fit the definition of something as abrasive as the word "destruction". Otherwise, all other mentions of the words "khachkar" and "destruction" refer solely to those in Nakhichevan.

Most of the info found on Julfa can be deleted and all we have to do is add an internal link to "Khachkar Destruction" and mention some info about it. GM would never accept these fringe Armenian sources under different circumstances, sources that don't even correspond to what the article is about. There's more than enough independent sources on the Khachkar Destruction in Nakhichevan page to warrant its own article whereas those khachkars in Armenia do not even fit the definition of Wikipedia's Notability guidelines.--MarshallBagramyan 06:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is strange that Marshall blames me of something with regard the 2 RfCs. When Khachkar destruction was created, I nominated it for deletion, because it was a fork for Julfa,_Azerbaijan_(city). Same content, but with different name. The result of AFD was keep, largely due to the votes of Armenian users, who voted to keep the article. Since it was to be kept, the article was developed, however, only 5 (!) days later the same people who voted to keep the article renominated the article, and some third party users even asked them, how did they expect to be taken seriously, when those same people voted to keep the article just a couple of days earlier.
Richard Cavell, who was closing admin for the RFCs, said inter alia: I resolve that this article should be kept in its current form. Editors may continue to edit, but please do not delete it, redirect it, or edit it such that it changes character from its present form. I appreciate that this decision is not going to please anybody, but any decision that I make has to take every view into account and will not please everybody. As an administrator I feel a need to provide some finality to this, and I've tried my best to collate the opinions of editors and administrators. I'm removing this page's protection. Please don't redirect the article or nominate it for deletion until 1 June 2007. [14]
However when the second AfD resulted with keep, Marshall created Khachkar_destruction_in_Nakhichevan to avoid any coverage of destruction in Armenia. What he did perfectly fits the description of a POV fork at WP:POVFORK: POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. Before Marshall made it into a fork, Khachkar_destruction_in_Nakhichevan was a redirect to Khachkar_destruction [15]
Also, Marshall grossly misinterprets and misquotes the sources he uses as references. According to the sources, Shah Abbas resettled the entire population of Nakhichevan, and not only Armenians. Marshall’s edit to the article fails to mention that and provides figures not for Nakhichevan, but for the larger area, while not specifying how many Armenian and other people were removed from Nakhichevan itself. The sources that he listed do not support his claim and for the most part are irrelevant to Nakhichevan. We had a large dispute on Nakhichevan article, and Marshall, Fadix and others failed to prove that only Armenians were resettled from Nakhichevan. I don’t think that such manipulation is acceptable, and neither is Marshall relentless reverting of my edits and tags that I attached to demonstrate that the accuracy of the article is disputed. Grandmaster 07:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, I did not remove any piece of sourced info, this edit only removed unsourced weasel wording, which should be avoided according to the rules. As for the word “alleged”, it is not OK to add words to the quotes. The quote should be presented the way it is, it is pretty obvious that those words are the opinion of the person quoted. Grandmaster 08:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please look back at the aforementioned sources before you accuse me of distortion. I'm not going to explain myself again as to why your assertion that Muslims who were removed (not from Nakhichevan since there is little mention of them) formed a majority is deeply flawed. In regards to this comment The quote should be presented the way it is, it is pretty obvious that those words are the opinion of the person quoted. I'm not quoting the official, that is why there are no quotation marks. Since the official's comments are uncorroborated by any sources, his opinion remains "alleged". Just because someone says something in a news article, doesn't mean that it is true, and that's why words and phrases like "stated", "said", "according to" are used. If we were to go by your logic, then we could have easily removed all such words in the article, presenting the Khachkar destruction as an absolute, 100%, undoubtable fact and every such controversial statement as indusputable pieces of evidence.--MarshallBagramyan 16:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You are being unnecessarily argumentative Grandmaster. Checking the recent contributions of Grandmaster, we see that he is doing just the same on Paytakaran article by arguing that Paytakaran wasn't only an Armenian province. Grandmaster, I went through the talkpage of Nakhichevan and its archives which Marshall asked me to do yesterday. I saw the long discussions between you and Fadix and what I can see is that it has been said and documented to you that Armenians were the only ones resettled permanently in Iran (while Fadix also mentions the Georgians sometimes)...I don’t think we could call this as failure to prove the thing in question. Neither this. Thatcher, please read the sources provided here and conclude on whether or not Marshall is grossly misinterpreting and misquoting the sources. I will note that I also see that Grandmaster is opposing the indication in the Nakhichevan article that the name of the region is etymologically Armenian, after various sources were provided to him. - Fedayee 00:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Paytakaran was not only Armenian province, it was also part of states of Caucasian Albania and Medes. I provided dozens of sources on this, but certain people are still in denial of facts. As for Nakhichevan, I'm ready to present sources to demonstrate that the entire population of Nakhichevan was resettled. That was proven more than once on talk of Nakhichevan, and even Armenian sources support this info. Despite all this the information is being distorted and twisted by some users. Grandmaster 04:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, I have read what you have already provided and have read also what Fadix wrote on Nakhichevan talkpages. And from what I see, you never provided sources as Fadix has mentioned that anyone but Armenians were truly "permanently resettled" (to use Fadix's words)...the sources you have provided were on the evacuation during the war. I have also read those "Armenian sources" you have provided like Arakel, and the provided quotes already support Marshall's wording. Your other source which is Bournoutian says evacuation and not resettlement. As for Paytakaran...I cannot comment as I was not part of the discussion, but Paytakaran was the name of an Armenian province. I wasn't aware that other people also had a Paytakaran province.
I apologize for turning this into a discussion page Thatcher but I'd like to report to you that from my short encounter with Grandmaster, I have witnessed him wanting to merge similarly three different subjects. On the Khachkar destruction article, which was created to cover the destruction of the Khachkars in Nakhichevan, he tried incorporating some information from one Armenian website about the mishandling of Khachkars which resulted with Marshall's creation of an article about what the article was supposed to be when created in the first place. Then on the Paytakaran article, he tried claiming that Paytakaran was not only an Armenian province. He attempted to merge the article with the Armenian Meliks article and the only thing I see now is that the editor acting as a mediator agreed with his 'opponents' while from the arbitration that I have read, he initiated it. We're on your talkpage so I'll stop answering Grandmaster here. - Fedayee 19:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
About Nakhichevan, sources make it perfectly clear that the entire population of the province was evacuated by Shah Abbas. This information is suppressed by Marshall and some unrealistic figures on Armenian population included, which relate to a larger region, but not Nakhichevan. As for Paytakaran, it is again clear from all the sources, including those to which Eupator and others refer that the region was part of various states. As for Khachkar destruction, I don’t think that there’s any excuse for creation of a fork after 2 AfDs voted to keep the article at that title. Grandmaster 05:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

1929 Hebron Massacre

Much as I appreciate your attempt to resolve problems at 1929 Hebron massacre with Edit warring, I fear you are missing the point. The article in its current form is unfit to be in the encyclopaedia. It's been hi-jacked by POV, it reads like propaganda - and that's because it is propaganda. Just as one example, in the lead, it says "The massacre also led to the re-organization and development of the community defense organization, the Haganah, which later became the nucleus of the Israel Defense Forces.", when many/most of the settlers were already armed for offense (eg Jabotinsky "The Iron Wall" 1923). PalestineRemembered 15:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to attempt the normal dispute resolution process such as request for third opinion or request for comment or mediation. If you can build a consensus for change then you won't have to revert war to implement it. One revert per day per editor should be more than enough for reasonable people to work out their differences. If a group of editors refuse to cooperate through the disupte resolution process you can take them to arbitration. Thatcher131 01:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message

You have no credibility with me any more. Ban me if you want to so. Fred Bauder takes me as a joke. Rosencomet can go on and on introjecting comments into other people talk pages for months and you do nothing. I believe you are biased. That is my opinion. If you go back and make Rosencomet do the same, remove his introjected comments (we will forget the introjected comments by 999, Hanuman Das, Ekajati etc., the protected sockpuppets} that you chose to overlook then I will do the same. Until you apply your authority fairly I feel no obligation to be singled out for discrimination. HeadlessJeff 16:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You felt no such obligation to me under continual harassment

Example:

  • October 18, 2006 - ANI #110

Another example from my so-called mediator or whatever he was supposed to be

(posted on ANI as soon as he found out he was on my case) Jefferson Anderson, please do no delete material from my user page again

Mattisse redux

I'm sure many of you are familiar with the interesting history of Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · 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)

Are you available at all for help or can you suggest someone. Everyone seems to be clearly supporting Rosencomet and Jefferson Anderson. I think it would be fair for me to get some help in this situation.

More from a so-called unbiased person

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)

  • This is from a person who hosted forums against me under his other name (before he changed it). He and User:Anger22 called me a troll. (That was O.K. under your standards I guess.) Then when I asked Ars Scriptor about all this he promised to get back to me over the weekend but instead "retired" forever, a ploy User:Hanuman Das utilised shortly after. HeadlessJeff 17:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can give you 100 more examples

Lets face it, AGF never did apply to me. And I started out an idealistic user and remained so until today. HeadlessJeff 17:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

01-12-2006 Jefferson Anderson

Jefferson Anderson shows up on my talk page on January 12, having had no interactions with me before and posts the following many posts all on that day, then lists me as a rude editor on his user page along with a Mattisse sockpuppet box. January 12 sequential diffs:

  • My edit [16]
  • JA (his first edit on my page but he copied something above that I did not write [17]
  • JA post #2 [18]
  • JA post #3 [19]
  • JA [20]
  • JA[21]
  • JA after my apology [22]
  • I copy my replies from his page to mine [23]
  • JA [24]
  • JA [25]
  • I apologise again [26]
  • and again [27]
  • JA [28]
  • JA [29]
  • JA [30]
  • JA puts list of rude editors on his page[31]
  • JA[32]
  • JA[33]
  • another user advises him [34]
  • JA puts Mattisse sockpuppet tag on his user page[35]
  • someone else removes template [36]

The last edit summary I made asking him not to post on my page again has been used repeadedly since as an example of my harrassment of him. On January 18 he posts on my talk page again: [37] I am suspicious of him now because he posted on my page repeatedly without knowing me, his subject was sockpuppet (known preocupation of Hanuman Das and Ekajaki), he was overly invested in me as shown by his posts, after I apologised deeply three times, he listed me as a rude editor and posted the Mattisse sockpuppet box on his user page. Why would a disinterested user invest so much time in me? Sincerely, Mattisse 15:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

More from sock puppet User:Ekajati

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: [38]. 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)
  • Yes, sock puppets are so credible. And this ring had been goin on since at least March of 2006. But then, they were the "in" group, the ones that you protect it seems. HeadlessJeff 17:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The AGF is just killing me!

If you believed my original explanation and AGF none of this would have come up:

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)

Thank you so much for the lack of AGF for me. It outlines what has happened so clearly. I never realised completely until today. HeadlessJeff 17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Such AGF! I never had a chance, did I? HeadlessJeff 17:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Note I will read the above and reply by e-mail tonight. Thatcher131 17:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse/Timmy12

(from Ekajaki's archives> Have you filed a checkuser request for this? --Aguerriero (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think my filing the checkuser would make any difference. There are only a few admins who have the checkuser function, and they seem only to use it on very specific cases where the abuse is dramatic. If I were to file it, they would say the same thing. It is not obvious, but Timmy12 is also not violating any specific rules. If he does, let me know. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
She was blocked for both of her previous sockpuppet abuses, although not indefinitely. I am in contact with the last blocking admin to find out any more details. If there is any evidence of current abuse or disruption, the appropriate action will be taken. --Aguerriero(talk) 22:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

--Aguerriero(talk) became User:Ars Scriptor and "retired" over the weekend after I asked why he reverted my edits upon User:Ekajati's request, just because she asked and without knowing anything about the situation, other than Ekajati had asked User:Anger22 to do so before who complied without knowing anything about the situations either. User:Anger22 called me a "troll" but that is O.K. as User:Ekajati certainly was not. Oh, well. It's only the dispensible Mattisse. No point in protecting her. HeadlessJeff 18:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your warning

Thanks. I will do so. I was thinking of talking a wikibreak while Mattisse finishes self-destructing, and your note convinces me that that is the right thing to do. Jefferson Anderson 19:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not ask him

User:Jefferson Anderson chose to stalk me there as he does everywhere. So his stalking me is my fault too. I guess that makes sense. Yeah, it does make sense. I am the cause of everything. I keep forgetting that. Dumb me! Dumb! HeadlessJeff 19:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Do what you have been wanting to do all along. To me your biases seem clear, so act on them and sock me, or whatever the suggestion was. HeadlessJeff 19:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Noticing the above comment, User:Jefferson Anderson was already on a wiki break, maybe not offically. So this is great for him. Yours truly, HeadlessJeff 19:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Why did he get involved in Mr. Fred Bauder's page to begin with? It was none of his business. Yours truly, HeadlessJeff 19:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You mentioned me, badmouthed me in fact after agreeing with my advocate to stop referring to me as a sockpuppet. How is that not my business? Jefferson Anderson 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

BackMaun

Wow. Here I was about to enter a challenge to Mattisse's statements and ask why you keep protecting her, but you've obviously suffered enough. I had no idea how disrespectful she was being to you. I suppose I should have expected it, since she's treated just about every arbitrator and advocate she's interacted with the same way, even if they support her but just not as agressively as she'd like (as in your case, to some extent); Fred Bauder, SilkTork (formerly Steve Caruso), etc. etc. What amazes me most is that she can't see herself as having provoked the reactions of other editors at all; she is convinced that she has always been, and is now, the poor poor victim. Or at least that's the way she's acting; for someone claiming to be a psychologist, you'd either expect more introspection if she's really as oblivious as she claims, or simply be fed up with the manipulation if she's not. In any case, you must have the patience of a saint. Are you even her advocate, or have you just ended up in this position?

Anyway, I don't think I have to repeat my position. Timmy12 is, or was, whatever he/she was. BackMaun and Alien666 and RasputinJSvengali may be a return for him/her, but if I read you right, there is no way to find out. A checkuser was never run on Timmy12 either (for reasons that baffle me), so we'll never know if Mattisse and he/she shared an IP address either, regardless of an arbitrator's assertion that there was not enough similarity between their editing to assert they were the same. And if Mattise edited as HeadlessJeff at some time before she made it known that this is a signature for her, I guess that will not be known, either. I could just be remembering that wrong, I suppose, or mixing it up with a similar name. (NearlyHeadlessJeff?) :-)

Putting all that in the past, there are a few things we know right now: that Fred Bauder ran a checkuser on Mattisse, BackMaun and Alien666 recently which showed that they shared an IP address, that there is a lot of similarity between their (and RasputinJSvengali's) editing and who's work they target, that BackMaun has locked horns with the same people as the others and made reference to these same conflicts on my talk page, William M. Connolley's and Jefferson Anderson's in an accusatory if not outright hostile manner, and that both BackMaun and Mattisse are still editing (BackMaun as recently as April 21st). Mattisse has never even stated point blank that there is no connection between herself, BackMaun, and Alien666, just objected to the meanies accusing her of it. If they ARE the same, then we have a multiple sockpuppeteer who used them from the time she began editing (May 2006) until she was caught (September 2006) - five months, not "a few weeks in September" - who insists she has stopped the behavior (which, may I remind you, included creating fake articles and attributing them to other editors), but is in fact not only editing that way again but instigating conflicts between editors again and being abusive to advocates and arbitrators.

I believe this cannot be ignored or swept aside. The past is past, but this is present behavior. I'm sure you've heard the definition of insanity that characterizes it as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome, and I think we would be crazy to think that IF this IS what's going on (and I don't command the technology to check this, only you and your colleagues do) it will stop by just calling it "old news", or accepting insincere apology number twenty-nine or whatever, and letting there be no consequences. Other editors have been banned for far less; this must IMO at least be pursued and determined once and for all. Fair is fair.

And I thank you for your consideration and patience. I do not want to add to your stress, and I certainly will assume good faith in your desire to be even-handed. I can only hope this unpleasantness will end, and I am so sorry to see the thankless way your efforts have been received. I have had my disagreements with one or two "people in power" on Wikipedia, however that works, but I have to greatly respect anyone willing to put their necks out and deal with this contentious and often immensely frustrating chore. More power to you. Rosencomet 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just try and take it easy for a bit, and avoid engaging Mattisse in further discussion on any page. I'll let you know about future developments if I can work them out. Thatcher131 20:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Global warming article ban

Do you think it is fair that people should be disciplined without being told what they have done wrong? I put a lot of effort into making it as easy as possible for you to tell me why you consider my behavior inappropriate. May I please have the simple courtesy of being told what exactly you found offensive? James S. 19:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artaxiad#IPs (checked)

Would it be possible to mark the ips that had been banned on that page (if you have a semi automatic way of doing this). I really do not want to do it by hand :P -- Cat chi? 20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an automated way of doing it. pgk has a script that may be able to do this. I pretty much banned everything that even smelled like an open proxy; the unbanned IPs on that list mainly resolve to a couple of universities and a public library in toronto. Thatcher131 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that it makes any difference obviously

But a checkuser was run on Timmy12 and me (Mattisse) and came up negative. But who cares about the facts. We make reality by postings, not real evidence. Sincerely, --HeadlessJeff 20:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

When? Where? Please direct me to that result, and I will gladly review it. It may WELL make a difference. Rosencomet 20:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Shhh. Please don't engage each other for a little while. Thatcher131 20:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Read that after posting this. Rosencomet 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How can I take it easy

I have explained about my grandchildren. It was ridiculed by Rosencomet and others as the "Granny defense" among other places on the ANI pages. I just can't find it. I explained on BostonMA's talk page among other pages which was copied and passed around and ridiculed. This is hopeless. I cannot defend myself and I cannot get help. How can I take easy? -- people like you with power can take it easy. I have to worry every single day. Don't make fun of me now -- please, please! --Mattisse 01:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the check user filed against me -- I can't find it

--Mattisse 01:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the one between Timmy12 and me was merge so I cannot produce it and it is as if it never happened. --Mattisse 01:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How do I get back the pages that have been blanked?

Please someone help me. Can you recommend someone to help me. I do not know how to find lost links. I have been looking. Is there a person that can help me? Sincerely, --Mattisse 02:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is part of what Jefferson Anderson removed

Jefferson Anderson, please do no delete material from my user page again

Mattisse redux

I'm sure many of you are familiar with the interesting history of Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · 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)

Please note: there are two examples of the "granny defense" which it is claimed I never tried to explain. --Mattisse 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps?

While I am really leaving WP for a bit and coming back with a new account, in the interests of fairness, there is another user who also insistently believes that I was part of the Ekajati ring. That user is WeniWidiWiki, who is also vehemently opposed to Rosencomet and has recently had a small tussle with him over the new Jeff Rosenbaum article created by Badagnani: [39], [40], [41], [42]. It seemed necessary to mention this, I'd hate to see Mattisse continue to be distressed if Alien666, BackMaun and RasputinJSvengali are actually being run by a different puppetmaster.

Also, could you please protect both my user and talk page the way I left them (with just the template)? TIA. Jefferson Anderson 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I may be able to have that checked. The real problem with checkuser is that unless you have named suspects to compare, it can really be a blind fishing expedition unless the puppetteer is a complete novice. I will protect your pages. Good luck. Thatcher131 15:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Different geographic areas. Thatcher131 15:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please try to AGF in my case - you have not so far

--Mattisse 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Could you please protect my user talk page and user page from further vandalism from Jefferson Anderson and others? I noticed he requested that above and I assume you will do it. The last time you turned me down. Perhaps in the interest of beginning to AGF with me you will. Thank you. Sincerely, --Mattisse 16:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I protected Anderson's talk page because he has retired. As an active editor, your talk page can't be protected except briefly to stop ongoing vandalism. It was sort of reasonable for JA to request that your pages be deleted, but clearly unreasonable for him to blank them in the process. Since he has retired, I expect that there will be no more problems with your user pages from him, and if he has retired for the reasons he says he has, then I expect his new account will leave you alone as well. Thatcher131 17:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
We will see, won't we. I do hope you keep an open mind on people who harass me. Besides those known well to you and to me, no one else does harass me. So if harassment starts ....
Please do not allow others to blank my pages as Jefferson Anderson did. I have tried to restore most of them, but I would greatly appreciate some consideration and concern from you in the future. Sincerely, --Mattisse 17:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Again I urge you to AGF toward me and stop dragging up what happen almost one year ago

Please stop dragging up the past. There is not one fault I have committed since fall of last year. I have been punished for all my sins long ago. Have you looked at my user page and seen the barnstars I have received? I am asking you to not equate my edit history with that of Jefferson Anderson. Would you desert 18,000 excellent mainspace edits made in less than a year, when I have done nothing wrong since last summer?

If you would please move on from the past and AGF toward me, which I can see is very difficult for you, I believe the situation would improve greatly. Meanwhile I have received much positive feedback from other editors who do not seem to have the AGF problem toward me as you do, although they know the story. "Please try a little harder" -- as Janis Joplin sang. Therefore, I will not be taking your advice of following in Jefferson Anderson's shoes so kindly offered to my in your email Sincerely, --Mattisse 17:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am playing your way fix my problem please rickie rich

Remove all the references hip hopjazzproduction etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.244.219 (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I have spoken to your head office I am playing wiki world game I have had enough now it is ok to slander me have your members stalk me find my address and commit brand damage then turn around waste my time etc etc. I am telling you and far as I am concerned that is enough. If you do not allow me to play by your rules. Even though they breach real world rules and common sense then you fix it. Take all references to hiphopjazzproductions.com hiphopjazzproduction.com flo2flo.com and harmonicazone.com I have not even used flo2flo on here some guy just traced it to me and added that to the harassment fix it. I spoke to your head office I have played the game I want it done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.244.219 (talk • contribs)

I ned not email the Arbitration committee. Jeferson Anderson filed one for Frater Xyzzy when Frater was blocked by going through an AMA Advocate - of course, since Frater Xyzzy is indefinately blocked the case as not been resolved. Sincerely Mattisse 19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Mattisse, I think you are confusing your situation with the comments made here by an IP editor who was trying to file an improper arbitration request. Completely different situation. Thatcher131 19:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your checkuser conclusions

If you and Rosencomet (and the now unknown Jefferson Anderson) can also move forward, I believe there will be no more problems for me. From these sources is where all my problems stemmed, once the organised sockpuppet ring was closed down. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

could you clarify this?

[43] This diff exists in the history of my user page. It identifies Alien666 and BackMaun as sockpuppets of Mattisse as identified by checkuser. If you are not the right person to ask, could you direct me to the correct person? Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[44] a similar diff in the history of my user page. Could you direct me to someone who can help me with this problem? Sincerely, --Mattisse 19:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I deleted several abusive revisions from your user page. Thatcher131 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, why arent you guys dont anything about Elsanaturk: [45]?Azerbaijani 22:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I might be confused here, did you guys remove the 1rr parole on us? Are we not under the parole anymore?Azerbaijani 22:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I messed up when I reported him. I was supposed to put new reports at the top of the page but I had put mine on the bottom. I have re-reported him.Azerbaijani 23:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The parole has not been lifted. You would have been notified. Thatcher131 23:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad

[46]

I was wondering why my comment was removed after 7 days. Artaxiad had caused additional disruption with sockpuppets and has threated to create more. Should I start a second ArbCom case? -- Cat chi? 23:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A clarification that does not get an arbitrator response within 7-10 days will usually never get one. Artaxiad is already banned for one year, the most that could be done would be to ban him indefinitely, but any admin can do that once Artaxiad has "exhasuted the community's patience." He appears to get around the ban by editing through open proxies and from a library and two universities in toronto. Short of banning Toronto from editing, there's not much else that can be done. He is basically in the category of persistent banned user like Bonaparte, Lightbringer, Jason Gastrich, and others. Just keep stomping on them when they poke their heads out far enough to be identified. Thatcher131 23:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I see, thats fine then. I would have welcomed arbitration committee saying something like "Artaxiad exhausted the community's patience" but I guess I'll settle with the solitude of silence :) -- Cat chi? 19:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this mission of accusing me of bearing old grudges! Assume some AGF regarding me, Thatchter131, just once!)

Please provide me evidence with diffs to support your claims, and please do not count Jefferson Anderson attacking me three days after he registered. I have only been kind to Rosencoment. I have apologized twice, which he has not accepted. I have not edited his article for 10 months, and then never maliciously although I did go over board naively on the tagging for which I regret and I apologise once again. Yes, when I was stalked by a sock puppet ring for almost a year I got unnerved and rattled and depressed. But I was never uncivil, I never left attacks in edit summaries,I did no stalk people or trash their articles, nor recruit other editors to revert the work of others. I tried to be friendly with Ekajaki and Hanuman Das. I did edit vey good articles, which seem to be disregarded by you completely. You recommend I desert an excellent record of editing? 18,000 mainspace article? Really? Why would I bother with Rosencomet and neopaganism when I am not even interested in the subject and risk my excllent editing record over a subject I can nothing about? Yes, the link spam bothered me. But I quickly dropped out of that and left others to deal with it.

For months I did not even know what was going on until I was accused of being a sock puppet of Timmy12. I had not been paying attention and so did not know about all that, did not know even that Timmy12 existed. I had new friends and new interests and articles to write. Please AGF and stop accusing me of holding a grudge. Please let this go. I did everything I knew how to do the right thing. Yes, once in a while I became completely unhinged because I am not invincible and do falter on occasion when under extreem duress, when ANI's were filed constantly againt me before I knew enough to know about ANI pages. Remember, this was an organised sock puppet after me. I never pretended to be perfect. But that you would even suggest I desert my edit history is incredible. I have been involved in many Feature Articles. I am very hurt and insulted that you disregard my hard work done for Wikipedia and think that I would risk my reputation and work over the likes of the articles of Rosencomet and Jefferson Anderson. I know you take me for a dope but I am not that stupid. I care about being a good editor and regarded and sought after as such. I value that. What you accuse me of does not make sense!

Stop trashing me, please! And stop equating me with Rosencomet and Jefferson Anderson as if we are similar people. Please, please, please drop this grudge against me. I will not be able to edit again until you do and until you can muster a minuscule amount of AGF toward me. You seem to be on a mission against me on this grudge issue. --Mattisse 02:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. (you will accuse me of lacking AGF, but do you find it strange that within minutes of posting my retirement, Jefferson Anderson was blanking my pages? No?) --Mattisse 02:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Matisse, please be aware that Thatcher131 is widely regarded as a fair and dedicated administrator. He is one of the few admins who has been willing to roll up his sleeves and deal with the stresses of the arbitration enforcement process, which is one of the more miserable administrator tasks as I can assure you from my own limited experience with it. I am sure his comments toward you were meant in a healthy spirit of good faith and conflict resolution, and I really wish you would stop immediately with making these kinds of comments about him. Newyorkbrad 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, Thatcher131 has never made a fair comment to me as he showed no AGF from the beginning. He obviously does not know much about me, going by his comments, so he is accepting the words of others. Tell me, Newyorkbrad, does it make sense for an editor held in high regard (except for sock puppets, Rosencomet and Thatchter131} to be told to ditch my fine reputation among editors, my over 18,000 mainspace edits, many copy editing of Feature Articles, a slew of barnstars and other accolades to prove to Thatcher131 that I hold no so-called grudge? Do you think an editor who has created such a record since May of 2006 has much interest or time in pursuing such "grudges" against editors of so-so articles on subjects of which I have no interest. (I have been told my many editors that I have nothing to fear as I am such an outstanding contributor.) Is that not a little irrtionale for him to suggest such a thing as a reasonable compromise? I am the 407th most productive editor at Wikipdedia according to the last listing. Tell me truthfully, does Thatcher131's advice to give up all that seem a sensible suggestion or trade off? He wants to reduce me to Rosencomets level. Compare my editing record with Rosencomets and give me a heartfelt answer that this is a reasonable suggestion. Sincerely, Mattisse 03:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

He did it once with in minutes - luckaly I caught it. How can I prevent it from happening again:

You told me be for that he had not but I looked at the histories and he had. --Mattisse 03:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Then you told me there was no way to protect. So if I leave for a few day I am lost. --Mattisse 03:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Altho you said he had not, he had blanked parts of pages. Loot at the history. How can I stop it? --Mattisse 03:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm a bit confused here but I think you are talking about Jefferson Anderson blanking your user pages. In general, if your pages are under attack from several people, or anonymous IP addresses, and it lasts more than a few hours, you can request protection at Requests for page protection or from any admin. If your pages are under attack from one person, it is better to block that person for harassment if he/she does not stop after being warned. Since Anderson stopped, there was no need to block him. As you know any page on a wiki can be restored to a previous state using the undo feature or by looking in the history, so no blanking or other vandalism is ever permanent. Even if pages are deleted (say, if an admin saw the speedy deletion note and did not double check what was going on), deleted pages can be easily restored. Simply ask the deleting admin or make a request at Deletion review.
Since Jefferson Anderson has stopped, and claims that he will be editing under a new name and avoiding old troubles, I think we are safe in assuming this problem is over. If in the future you find your pages being changed without your permission (that is vandalism) you can report the vandalism to Admin intervention against vandalism and whoever happens to be watching the reports there are the time will either warn the vandal or block him, and if it persists for more than a little while or from 3 or 4 different people or addresses, go to Requests for page protection and ask for help. And remember that changes can also be undone back to the way they were. Thatcher131 03:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I am talking about yesterday. a few minutes I posted that I was retiring for a while, Jefferson Anderson blanked several parts of several pages. Anonymous ones I know will be reverteed. But his blanking of my pages was not. I had to go through the history and try to restore them. Mattisse 04:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If I had not seen it happen, if I were not on the web, if I were on vacation or something, how can that be prevented from happening again. He was obviously stalking me (I know that is not AGF) but it happne d immediately after I put that sign up. Mattisse 04:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If your pages were protected then you would not be able to edit them either. Protection is generally reserved for persistent ongoing problems. A number of high profile users' pages are frequent targets for vandalism, most people just revert the vandalism and forget about it. It is very easy to revert a page to any previous version that you want. Click on the history tab of any page to see a list of recent versions. Click on the version date and time you want to look at. There will be a pink box reminding you that you are looking at an old version. Then click edit this page. There will be another pick box warning you You are editing a prior version of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this version will be removed. Click save. This procedure, called a revert, erases all changes made to the page since, and restores that exact version. So you can look at the history of each of your subpages and revert them all to the exact version that existed before Anderson edited them.
Anderson should not have done what he did. By the time I was aware of it, he had stopped. If he does it again, he will be blocked. Obviously I am not online 24 hours a day, but vandalism can always be reported here and someone will take care of it. (That page is watched 24 hours a day by many admins.) No matter how long it takes to stop such vandalism, you can always use the revert method to restore the page to any version you want. Thatcher131 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that if you were going on vacation you could ask at requests for page protection to have your pages temporarily protected while you were away. Thatcher131 15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to answer ,me? I need to know as I need to get away from here

But I must be constantly figulant against this sort of thing. I am not worrying about my articles being vandalisd now. --Mattisse 04:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

o.k. you are not going to answer me

You used to never answer me, so things have improved, I guess. Mattisse 04:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I do work and eat and sleep, you know. Thatcher131 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't. Why do you get to? I was assuming (wrongly I guess) that you were reverting to you previous policy of ignoring my posts. I apologise if you are now replying. It is just a strange feeling that I can't get used to. Sincerely, --Mattisse 15:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting from my user page

I don't know if you are addressing me or not. I also don't know what you mean. What did you delete? I looked at the history and cannot figure out what you did, nor whether it was harmful or helpful to me. Sincerely, --Mattisse 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You posted this to my talk page:

[47] This diff exists in the history of my user page. It identifies Alien666 and BackMaun as sockpuppets of Mattisse as identified by checkuser. If you are not the right person to ask, could you direct me to the correct person? Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[48] a similar diff in the history of my user page. Could you direct me to someone who can help me with this problem? Sincerely, --Mattisse 19:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked and found that an anonymous IP user had unfairly labled you a sockpuppet. Probably Ekajati. I assumed you wanted the edit removed, so I did so. I also found some other abusive edits (such as calling you mentally unstable) and I removed them as well. Thatcher131 15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet labeling

Re your recent messages to me. I thank you for helping me on this as I have not been able to get any help before. Except for one kind person at the Village Pump all my requests for such removals have been ignored.

Since you implied that such labeling is not allow if it is not true, does that mean it is allowed if it is true? Please answer this. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure which labels you mean. User and user talk page should only be labeled with "sockpuppet" or "this user has used sockpuppets abusively" when the account is indefinitely blocked or banned. If a user is only suspected of being a sock or of having sock puppets, or is confirmed to have used sock puppets but is being given a second chance, then their user and user talk pages should not be tagged. Sockpuppet tags should really never be placed on user and user talk pages by editors who are in a dispute with the editor they are tagging, it should be left to a neutral third party. Thatcher131 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

'Nuff said

I said it before and I'll say it again; you've got the patience of a saint. In the words of Stan Lee, 'Nuff Said. Rosencomet 16:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion about Deletion Review

First of all, I have no idea where that is and I am sure that is a complex administrative maze. Second, you are saying that each time a vandal blanks a portion or sub portion of my page while I am gone, I must go and request and justify why each should be restored. And this means I have to spend a great deal of time hunting the blanking down by going through histories, diffs etc. I am taking an indefinite wikibreak because I am exhausted from the last 10 months of harassment and having to try to protect myself. You are suggesting that I return, only to encounter again having to go through the same exhausting process of getting diffs and searching histories and collecting diffs again?

I wish you you be so kind and gracious to me as you were to the sock puppet ring and as you are now to Jefferson Anderson, acknowledged (by you) harassor, now free to roam and harrass under a new identity. O.K. Block me for not having the proper AGF. You have insulted me by suggesting I reduce my edit history to the level of Jefferey Anderson's and that my record is just as immaterial. I believe that is the level of your respect for me which is not much considering what I have contibuted positively to Wikipedia. As I mentioned above I am #407 on the list of most prolific contributors (using no bots and such -- those were real edits). And you suggest to show AGF to my harassor, I desert that record. That is not AGF of you to me. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I will save my pages as text files, and past them back in when I return. That is the only solution I can thing of. And, by the way, I am mentally unstable at this point, and would recommend Wikipedia only for hardened criminals. --Mattisse 16:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have read my messages. Anything blanked by a vandal my be restored by simply going to the page history and doing a revert. I would not characterize that as a great burden--vandalism is a daily fact of life on wikipedia and if you were to edit any of the particularly vandal-prone articles (celebrity bios and political figures, for example) you would see that reverting vandalism is a simple and routine procedure.
Deletion review pertains to any page actually deleted by an admin. If an admin deletes a page that you want kept, whether an article, image, or user page, you should first ask the admin who deleted it to restore it for you. If the admin refuses, then appeal is through Deletion review, which you can find by clicking that blue link I just wrote. Thatcher131 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI Re: Mattisse

Mattisse seems to have begun a campaign of unsigned sockpuppet tags on past comments made by Ekajati & Co. on Talk:Starwood Festival. Rosencomet 17:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

She is now adding large amounts of information concerning the past arbitration, sockpuppetry cases (not her four, of course), etc. etc. This is neither civil nor any way to "let go of the past", but IMO clearly intended to incite more conflict as is her usual behavior pattern. Can I delete these additions? Is this going to be the beginning of another revert war? Can someone finally stop Mattisse from picking fights in Wikipedia, then telling advocates and administrators that she's a poor victim who is always civil to everyone but they harass her for no reason? Rosencomet 18:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The tags are now being placed in the middle of paragraphs of text. It has also spread to User_talk:SilkTork/AMA_Archive/Mattisse. None of them are signed. Rosencomet 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted Talk:Starwood Festival. I guess I need to look at her other contribs now too. Thatcher131 20:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your quick action. Hopefully she won't keep generating more. (If only she'd at least take that Wikibreak she keeps talking about.)Rosencomet 20:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way

I know you never bothered to notice that except for the overboard tagging on the Starwood related articles and the result of having to be involved in related mediations, arbitrations, and RFC's, I have never edited neopagan articles and have no interest in the subject whatsoever, so I find it insulting that you imply that I must "restrain" myself from editing them, since I never do anyway. Please stop insulting me by email in every which possible way. It is clear from your email that you think I am BackMaun (more AGF from you) so I respectfully ask you not to send me any more insulting emails. --Mattisse 18:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

After looking at BackMaun's edits, I am insulted beyond belief that you have such a low opinion of me. I think you own me an apology, a very big one. I am insulted that you put me in the same category as that of Rosencomet and Jefferson Anderson -- those are my feelings. You have protected those people for almost a year at my expense.

You have speculated at length in you email about my manipulative behavior, my motivations, my intrigues and dishonesty and worse. You describe my motivations as they exist in you mind and how I hide manipulativeness and the truth. You see me in the worst imaginable light. You do me the favor of offering to raise myself to the level of Jefferson Anderson to start over. With your permission, I would like to publish that email. I feel like I have been kicked in the gut. Sincerely, --Mattisse 18:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I sent you a private e-mail to discuss a sensitive matter while respecting your privacy. I believe it is very likely that you have been editing as BackMaun. In February, you and BackMaun shared an IP address. Now, checkuser finds that you edit from a cable modem while BackMaun edits from a dail-up in the same city. You seem to use a brand new PC while BackMaun uses an older model. All together, one explanation is that you are BackMaun, and that you edit as Mattisse from a new PC on a cable modem and as BackMaun from your old PC on a dial-up service. If I was 100% positive I would block you for repeating the disruptive behavior you were caught at in the Starwood case. Instead, I told you privately of my suspicions and did not even ask you to confirm or deny them. I was trying to give you the chance to change your behavior quietly and with dignity.
I do believe that you hold grudges against many people, including Jefferson Anderson, Rosencomet, the AMA and Anderson's advocate. You say you don't, and I freely admit that I can't read your mind. However,

In my e-mail to you I treated you with dignity. I acknowledged that you were harassed by a nasty sockpuppeteer who took a long time to catch. I suggested that one way to rebuild your reputation was to drop your grudges; another way is to start with a fresh account. I did all of this privately. You have responded publically by focusing on the second suggestion, being very offended, stating that you are insulted and never want to deal with me again (while still asking for my help, by the way). I suggest you think about the first suggestion I made. Thatcher131 20:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Starting a discussion

Since in order to file any kind of complaint against you, and I know I stand no chance of a good outcome, I need to start a discussion with you. First I want to know where you obtained your certainty of the "facts" about me and my motivations (AGF). Second, I would like to know what you really think my motivations are, as you see them, and from where could they stem? What could they possibly be? I am not interested in Starwood. I was trying to help Wikipedia. Please explain how you evolved these byzantine beliefs about my motivations, my fixation on neopaganism (could not be further from the truth) and made them into reality in your head and probably those of others you influence? The worst possible reality that could be concocted from the so-called "facts" is what you invented. Then you send me an insulting letter that assumes that your speculations are true (AGF) and that I can redeem myself by lowering myself to the level of Rosencomet and Jefferson Anderson. Why? Please explain. And please expain why I got no help or guidance in the Arbitration and could not even get questions answered from you? Is it because you had already formed your opinion? Sincerely, --Mattisse 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. I want to use your letter to me as evidence. --Mattisse 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to you sharing my e-mail with anyone, as long as you share the entire e-mail and do not selectively edit it. Thatcher131 19:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this the substance of your discussion? Mattisse 19:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This entire talk pages contains more than enough discussion to take whatever next step you wish to take. However, see above for a specific reply to some of these issues. Thatcher131 20:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I assume you reverted all the ones labelled as my sockpuppets also, right?

I know you are fair and even handed so I know you reverted the many that have been labelled as my sockpuppets too on that very same page . You would not be partial to Rosencomet I know. Should I sent you a list of all the other pages that have such sockpuppet comments about me on them? Sincerely, --Mattisse 20:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have asked a neutral third party to remove them for you. I am late for a date tonight. Generally, if the comment is labeled at the time of the discussion to help the other editors understand the discussion, it is probably reasonable. If the comment was made later as a form of retribution it should probably be removed. Thatcher131 20:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I will start a list that have those comments on them. I think they should be removed for Timmy12 too since he was so vilified and slandered. Thanks for being a good guy and doing this, as those comment have been spread all over the wikipedia for almost a year in some cases and no one has been willing to remove them, except you, Rosencomet's protector. Thanks! Mattisse 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
How can she insult you and thank you in the same sentence? Rosencomet 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet another barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For an excellent email attempt to save a long time editor. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You clearly don't have enough of these! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Here, Here! Rosencomet 22:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You mean hear, hear, but I also agree. Newyorkbrad 22:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I meant Hear, hear? Where? Where? Oh, there! There! Rosencomet 02:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Banned?

I do not understand why I have been banned for two months from three different articles. In the case of Randolph Scott I accept that I was blocked for 24 hours as I was part of an edit war, although I only tried to reinstate a well-sourced passage repeatedly deleted by another user. However, I do not accept the ban in the other cases.

  • First, according to the early arbcom ruling of November 2005, Onefortyone "may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research." Would you please explain to me, where I have inserted poorly sourced information or original research. Since my experience in that arbcom case, all of my contributions are now well sourced and I am frequently citing my sources (published books, academic studies, articles in reputed periodicals etc.).
  • Second, you said that my conduct has been disruptive and that one of my edits was "almost a complete reversion across 14 good faith edits by other editors". I am sorry to say that most of these edits were certainly not done in good faith. Apart from some vandals and another user, they were chiefly done by one and the same person who is a single topic editor (see [50]) and seems to be identical with, or somehow related to, one of my opponents in former arbcom cases. This person was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia some months ago but, to my mind, has now created one or two new sockpuppets. Would you please have a look at this newer arbcom decision which proves that some Elvis fan(s) frequently endeavored to delete critical information from Elvis Presley. The arbcom confirmed that my "editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content." Furthermore the arbcom said that my opponent "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley" and that he "shows evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Therefore my opponent was "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley." (For more details, would you please ask arbcom member Fred Bauder.) Now this opponent seems to have reappeared and has again deleted large blocks of sourced material from the Elvis article. See [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], etc. etc.

This user even mangled direct quotes from books as my former opponent did. See, for instance, [61]. And he even repeatedly removed content from talk pages. See [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], or, using the IP217.196.238.133, [67]. What I have tried is simply reinstating all those passages this user has deleted or mangled. Interestingly, the same person/sockpuppet is also deleting passages from the Nick Adams article. See [68] or, using another sockpuppet, [69], [70], [71], etc. This user must also be identical with IP203.202.144.22 (see [72], [73], etc.) and this newly created sockpuppet. Therefore, would you please lift my ban and instead ban my opponent and his sockpuppets. He is the disruptive force as he is frequently deleting large blocks of sourced material from the articles on Elvis Presley and Nick Adams. Thank you. Onefortyone 03:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't yet responded to my query. In the meantime, another sockpuppet and single topic editor has appeared on the scene (see [74]) who is removing large blocks of well-sourced material from the Elvis Presley article (see [75]) and also deleting other users' commentaries from the related talk page (see [76]). Exactly the same thing happened last year before Ted Wilkes, Lochdale and their sockpuppets were banned by arbcom ruling from the Elvis article. Now they seem to have reappeared. Therefore, would you please lift my ban and put a stop to this disruptive behavior by banning these sockpuppets. Thank you. Onefortyone 04:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I have not yet received an explanation for my ban and you haven't answered my repeated requests. I do not understand why. As far as I can see, I have not violated my probation, and I have provided much evidence for being a good editor. Furthermore, you haven't reacted to the removal of well-sourced paragraphs done by the newly created sockpuppets of hard-banned users. May I ask you again to put a stop to their misbehavior and to lift my two-month ban. Onefortyone 22:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Answered on your talk page. Thatcher131 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for being impatient. Thank you very much for your good work. To my mind, there is much suspicion that User:Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo may be identical with my former opponents, multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes (alias User:DW) and/or User:Lochdale. As a new user, Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo immediately reacted to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laurens_Johannes_Griessel-Landau and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ElvisPresley with statements supporting the view of Lochdale (see [77], [78]), thereby using Wikipedia terminology such as "undue weight" (very unusual for a new user). Shortly after, the same user contributed to the Elvis arbitration case citing a specific passage from Priscilla Presley's book, Elvis and Me. See [79]. The only other Wikipedia users who were specifically interested in this book and the Wikipedia article on it, were Ted Wilkes and his supporter User:Wyss. See the contribution history from the beginning [80].
Furthermore, it is very interesting that Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo, as a relatively new user, was well informed about checkuser. See [81]. This means that he must have had much experience with Wikipedia policies and presumably with checkuser. As for Lochdale, he has also contributed as IPs 83.71.77.27 (see [82] and 63.85.72.242 (see [83]). And this edit indicates that Lochdale indeed inadvertently exposed his IP, editing while logged out and then logging in and signing.

As for the Randolph Scott article, I am sure we can work out the dispute without edit warring. Onefortyone 02:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo continues removing content from article pages using the name Icylew and the IP 203.202.144.223. See [84], [85], [86]. Onefortyone 03:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Randolph Scott

Thanks for your blocking notice for me on the Randolph Scott gay war. I did indeed engage in "edit-warring," though I did not know there was a name for it. I also did not know there was an alternative to it. Thanks to your block, I know now. I've gotten quite involved in editing in the past few months, but confess I don't understand a lot of the officially sanctioned means and methods. I'll study up. I've tried very hard to bring non-POV, cited material into play in various articles, and to eliminate POV or uncited provocative material, and in this particular case, I let the "you can't beat me" game get out of hand. In fact, I had just been thinking there ought to be a better way, since the way the Scott article was going, it was likely that what one learned about Scott on Wikipedia was going to alternate back and forth, day by day, forever, and an encyclopedia that says one thing one day and deletes that thing the next day in an ongoing cycle is not very encyclopedic. I'll read up on dispute resolution and see what's to be done. Thanks again for calling my attention to the error of my ways.Monkeyzpop 09:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki editing is collaborative; reverting someone else's contributions violates the spirit of collaboration and is disrespectful to what may be good faith attempts to improve an article. It is better to discuss disagreements on the talk page before getting into a big editing dispute. You'll get the hang of it. Good luck. Thatcher131 17:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Case naming

Hi - a minor issue, not to split hairs but I notice some inconsistency in your decisions of re-naming ArbCom cases. For example, with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan, you changed the name from "Siddiqui, Nadirali et al." Now you renamed "Cabalism" to "Hkelkar 2." Well the inconsistency is that you didn't want to have the title make assumptions, but the "India-Pakistan" title did make assumptions of a 2-nation dispute instead of a dispute strictly between users along opposite national, religious points of view. Frankly it made the ArbCom seem like the UN. I believe your reasoning for "Hkelkar 2" is the right one. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your argument on why the India-Pakistan name was wrong; with a widespread conflict it would be better to name the case after the issue than after some of the editors. In the future you can make suggestions at WP:AC/CN or WT:RFAR. Thatcher131 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
"India-Pakistan" was wrong because there was no content dispute strictly on the nationality lines. It was a user conduct issue, not a dispute about how to write articles on India-Pakistan topics. It was about POV-pushing on part of the users, not the POV they were pushing. That title would brand all Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians as parties to the dispute, which is incorrect. Hope it makes sense - it is a fine line, but somewhat important nevertheless. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Khabs

Just out of curiousity, where could I find any attack by Khabs on Mattisse? I'm not saying he wasn't a returning Ekajati. I have no way of knowing. But I just looked through his contribs (not thoroughly, I'll admit), and I couldn't find an article they even both edited on, nor a post on her talk page, nor one by her on his. All his conflicts seem to have been with BackMaun. I don't want to do anything with this info, I'm just curious where it might be, and how I missed it. Rosencomet 18:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Fred Bauder's talk page

According to Mattisse, I removed comments from Fred Bauder's talk page and you blamed her for it. I have no idea what she's talking about, nor was I aware that anyone removed anything from Fred Bauder's talk page. I certainly did nothing of the sort. What's going on? Walton Need some help? 12:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

She was inserting unsigned comments into Rosencomet's earlier messages and I told her to stop. I believe she saw your note about striking your own remarks and got confused. (Edits of April 25, generally). Thatcher131 14:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thatcher/Archive12&oldid=1144129325"