Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mattisse

message: I have never been inforrmed about any mediation. I don't believe 999 has been informed of any mediation either. I believe that unless you can show diffs of the filing users having been informed on their talk pages of the mediation, this item should be struck. —Hanuman Das 10:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As requested . A  note was was left on the Starwood page  a public place which I had hopped most interested parties would see. I've not advertised this widely as I have been waiting for a response from the mediator as to how we should approach this mediation before proceeding. --Salix alba (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to point 3 of Outside view

message: I'd like to note that a negative checkuser does not disprove sockpuppetry. From :Help:CheckUser
*CheckUser is not magic wiki pixie dust. Almost all queries about IPs will be because two editors were behaving the same way. An editing pattern match is the important thing; the IP match is really just extra evidence (or not).
Specifically, Check User cannot detect a user who has taken deception to the extreme of moving between two computers (say home and school or library). Editing patterns are thus more reliable means for determining sockpuppetry than Check User. A postive Check User is useful, a negative one is less so. —Hanuman Das 11:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response.  A common editting pattern of deleting rosencomet.com links is also not a reliable method of detecting sockpuppetry.  There are at least two possible explanations for the common editting pattern.  One possible explanation is sockpuppetry, which is the explanation you have offered.  A second possible explanation is that muliple editors believe the rosencomet links are linkspam.  Now it is clearly true that multiple editors believe the rosencomet links are linkspam, unless you wish to claim that all of the editors who have systematically deleted rosencomet links are sockpuppets of a single puppetmaster.       --BostonMA talk 13:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ResponseThis is bigger than and predates the simple removing of links as the evidence clearly shows if you would simply look through each edit listed. There is a much longer history of edits by Timmy12, but I will leave it to 999 to buff out the list. —Hanuman Das 14:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, the socks are all recently created accounts which immediately display a level of knowledge of Wikipedia beyond that of a new user. How many true new users start tagging articles, quoting WP:V and other policies right from the start??? I can immediately tell in this situation that neither you nor Calton are sockpuppets simply by going to your user contributions and noting that you started editing in 2005 and Calton in 2004. However, when three socks are blocked and then a couple of days later a new user appears doing exactly the same thing, one's suspicions are naturally aroused. —Hanuman Das 14:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, this RfC is not really about the removal of links. I agree that in some cases they should probably be remove, but that it should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Problem is, no one is engaging in that discussion, but just assuming they are right and reverting. No, this is about a bigger issue of targetting a particular set of articles for successive WP:POINT violations. During the tagging sprees, some articles deserves to be tagged,  but just as many didn't deserve tagging. Multiple people attempted to discuss with the tagger, but both Mattisse and Timmy12 won't engage in discussion with their "opponents" except in edit comments. Take a look at the talk pages of the articles involved. Of the few in which comments were made and a response was given, there was no response to that response. No discussion has occurred. The blanket tagging of a group of articles just because it belongs to that group, or the blanket removal of citations just becuase it belongs to that group is inappropriate editting. Articles should we worked on an article-by-article basis with engaged discussion on the talk page. The disdain showed in the edit comments in not conducive to WP:AGF. When I see the people (IMO) attacking the articles engage in good faith discussion on the talk page instead of labelling as SPAM or VANDALISM, etc, then I will see that others are assuming good faith and expect that progress will be made. I haven't seen anyone on your side admit that 1) the links are indeed valid citations as Samir has stated, and 2) that maybe some of them are actually appropriate. Until that is admitted, I don't see any reason to expect your side to compromise in any way. Why should I compromise with people unwilling to do so themselves? —Hanuman Das 14:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check User not magic pixie dust 

message: According to [[WP:RfC]
:"The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it."  
Is User:Ekajati certifying this RfC?  --BostonMA talk 00:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, it says that those certifying must have tried to resolve it. It does not say that those who tried to resolve it must certify it. Whether she endorses it is up to her. Please also note that users are ONLY TO EDIT the section they certified and that all DISCUSSION should take place on the talk page. —Hanuman Das 00:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by BostonMA 

message: Since some of the charges against User:Mattisse were about disputed edits concerning the Starwood Festival, I think it's worth mentioning that there is a Request for Comment on Starwood links in progress at the moment. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 03:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on Starwood 

message: I opened this RfC. I've looked for a process for closing it, but couldn't find one. How do I do so? —Hanuman Das 01:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I found it. —Hanuman Das 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing RfC