Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence

The Relevance of Mattisse's Sockpuppets

I'm placing this comment here because I'm not sure it really belongs on the evidence page. Ekajati provided a long list of sockpuppetry examples. Despite many of these user accounts being labeled on their user pages as being sockpuppets confirmed by Checkuser and a category being created of sockpuppets of Mattisse, my research finds that only one sockpuppet account was definitively identified on the request for checkuser on Mattisse: User:Xampt. Strangely, this user is not marked as a sockpuppet. Perhaps I've missed something. These are the places I've looked:

• I looked up Mattisse's case here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case
• Then Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse, Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse 2nd, and Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse 3rd (3rd was about the possibility of User:Timmy12 being a sock of Mattisse.)
• A slightly earlier inquiry is Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin and the talk page Wikipedia talk: Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin

Another point I find confusing is Ekajati's laying out evidence about Mattisse's alleged sockpuppet activities without explaining how this is pertinent to this arbitration. Again, perhaps I'm being a bit thick or slow on the uptake. (I use the phrase "alleged" only because I haven't seen the confirmation on the investigation pages listed above.)

I think it is also worth quoting from the outside statement of the RfC/Mattise which 14 people generally agreed with. (3 people supported the findings of the main RfC statement.)

"I beleive it is an RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary.

1. The adding of citation needed were good faith edits, attempting to improve the quality of the article.
2. All the articles in question have links to Starwood Festival and its website. Many of these links fall outside of WP:NPOV Undue Weight, overstating the importance of a performer apperance at the starwood festival. As such these links can be considered a case of WP:SPAM. The links have all been added by User:Rosencomet who is connect to the event so WP:VAIN also applies.
3. An attempt has just been started to resolve this dispute via the Mediation Cabel Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival, rather than attempt mediation the filers of this case have sought to base a case solely on the actions of one user.
4. User:Mattisse and User:Timmy12 have been subject to a number of visious personal attacks relating to these tags. [1] [2]
5. User Timmy12 has complained of harrassement. [3]
6. The sockpuppet situation is old news. All puppets have ceased operating. It have been confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mattisse that Timmy12, MaxReg are not a sockpuppet of mattise. Further the only confirmed sockpuppet User:Xampt was an account used for only three days for a total of 16 edits, the account was used to avoid the harrassesment, and did not break and wikipedia policies and guidelines. Administrators decided that no action was necessary.[4]
7. By perpetuating the sockpuppet allegations User:Hanuman Das and User:999 are failing to assume good faith. They are failing to attempt to seek comnsensus on the underlying content issue, instead relying on personal attacks.
8. In most other cases where mattise has added fact tags users have engaged in civil dialogue, resulting in improvements to the article in question."

There has been a running theme in the ACE/Starwood et al discussion of those who support the Starwood links bringing up the issue of Mattisse's alleged sockpuppets at regular intervals. The assumption on the part of those continually bringing up Matisse seems to be that if one of the numerous people who contested the links may have used sockpuppets, then all the other excesses or violations of policy in the case should be excused. I find this an unconvincing presentation, and an attempt at diversion from the main issues which are: 1. The excessive linking, 2. The conflict of interest, 3. The acting in defiance of WP policies and community consensus, and 4. The harassment and attempted intimidation of editors who questioned or removed the Starwood links. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 21:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Updated information on this: Apparently a series of socks were discovered accidentally by an admin with Checkuser powers investigating a different matter and the list posted on Mattisse's talk page with a warning. Because this was outside of the Checkuser protocol and system, nothing shows up in those normal channels. I'm unfamiliar with this kind of circumstance and perhaps it happens regularly but because of the oddness of it, I'd really like a bit more of an explanation from the admin and bureaucrat User:Rdsmith4. It's the lack of documentation that bothers me more than any distrust of Rdsmith4; I don't know him. I still feel this is generally a side matter, of little consequence to the central issues. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 01:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)