Mattisse Returns Options

[Ottava]

Mattisse returned as MathewTownsend. This user was teaming up with Jack Merridew's and Rlevse's socks to push for all sorts of weird changes at FAC, attack FAC regulars, etc.

I find this interesting - these were three users who attempted to use the FA process and content to get ahead. They were also corrupt users who relied on socks, plagiarized, and committed other problems. After they were eventually disposed of for abuse, they came back on new names to try and destroy the original system they tried to game.

The other site doesn't ever focus on such issues - they don't care about these fundamental problems and how the mentality of these users is quite prevalent.

[Ottava]

Eric Barbour said: "No, Jeff, we prefer not to discuss this kind of socking, because we are trying to focus on Wikipedia's real, deeply-ingrained, systemic problems."

I find that laughable. WR and the rest got their start primarily focusing on the socking and faking of credentials, and the falsification of identity is the most fundamental problem that affects Wikipedia.

Mattisse was not a good person, and put forth many false claims in multiple pages merely to disrupt. She also trashed a lot of medical articles merely to spite SandyGeorgia. She is a prominent vandal when she wants to cause as much harm to someone, and she loves to use a lot of socks to accomplish that feat.

Her article contributions are rather poor, and her GA reviews were quite shoddy. She did very little to check sources, and passed on people who were obviously plagiarizing. That other site cannot ever contain legitimate critiques of Wikipedia because they obviously don't care about any issues besides making fun of Fae's sexuality or mocking Jimbo's children.

Jack Merridew and Rlevse both operated socks for the same intent to destroy as much as possible, put forth vandalism, attack people who attempt to fix problems and attack any systems that would seek to address these problems. They are the worst kind of vandal. Perhaps Eric just wants to hasten the day.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[NotASpamBot]

Jack Merridew and Rlevse both operated socks for the same intent to destroy as much as possible, put forth vandalism, attack people who attempt to fix problems and attack any systems that would seek to address these problems. They are the worst kind of vandal. Perhaps Eric just wants to hasten the day.

Merridew, as far as I could see, did a lot to improve Wikipedia. He wasn't a content editor but more of a layout editor. While he could be short and gruff and grumpy, I never saw him as harmful to Wikipedia in the least. Not only that, but he cut right to the chase regarding certain editors and their continual bullshit and smoke and mirrors games. Usually the editors who got told off by Merridew deserved every bit of ripping they received and have never been of any real value editing-wise.

If I'm wrong, someone feel free to correct me.

[Ottava]

Jack Merridew and Rlevse both operated socks for the same intent to destroy as much as possible, put forth vandalism, attack people who attempt to fix problems and attack any systems that would seek to address these problems. They are the worst kind of vandal. Perhaps Eric just wants to hasten the day.

Merridew, as far as I could see, did a lot to improve Wikipedia.

You mean by edit warring in spelling editors, ungrammatical sentences, plagiarism, outright destroying sections of well written text, etc. to get revenge on editors who pointed out how destructive behavior elsewhere?

99% of his edits, if done by an IP, would have resulted in a block for vandalism.

[NotASpamBot]

You mean by edit warring in spelling editors, ungrammatical sentences, plagiarism, outright destroying sections of well written text, etc. to get revenge on editors who pointed out how destructive behavior elsewhere?

99% of his edits, if done by an IP, would have resulted in a block for vandalism.

I don't recall seeing any of that, but maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention. So, tell me this, why didn't the edits you believe were destructive end in blocks?

[Ottava]

You mean by edit warring in spelling editors, ungrammatical sentences, plagiarism, outright destroying sections of well written text, etc. to get revenge on editors who pointed out how destructive behavior elsewhere?

99% of his edits, if done by an IP, would have resulted in a block for vandalism.

I don't recall seeing any of that, but maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention. So, tell me this, why didn't the edits you believe were destructive end in blocks?

They did end in blocks, on many names. He ran dozens of accounts.

He received adminship at Wikisource by taking a huge document I transcribed from an old book by hand and merely copied and pasted it over at Wikisource. He immediately took full credit for it and lied about his contributions. He then used that adminship to get unbanned at Wikipedia and then came back to try and destroy more of my pages.




And Eric "If real identities were required, yes, this would be far less likely to happen. But real reform of the governance would be required, and that will NOT happen, as long as the present gang of twitching idiots stays in charge."

I believe that real reform can only come from knowing the real identities of those with power. Too many people have gotten adminship through sock puppetry or restarts (which is sock puppetry just disguised as something other than blatant abuse). Even some of the past Arbitrators had friends who were socks or ran socks themselves, or faked credentials (Essjay, anyone?).

Wikipedia would only work as a meritocracy or as a Technocracy (practically the same thing). Both require stable identities and proof of contribution. Wikipedia is too easily gamed. The plagiarism is further faking one's identity as it is passing off something that isn't yours as your own.

[NotASpamBot]

He received adminship at Wikisource by taking a huge document I transcribed from an old book by hand and merely copied and pasted it over at Wikisource. He immediately took full credit for it and lied about his contributions. He then used that adminship to get unbanned at Wikipedia and then came back to try and destroy more of my pages.

I see. So your hatred of Merridew and belief that he's contributed nothing good to Wikipedia is because he pissed you off. Your opinion about him is based on bias based on something you perceived he did to hurt you specifically. In other words, you don't really care about the good work he did at Wikipedia, just how you think he wronged you. In even more other words: it's all about you.

I know nothing of you or your time in WP because we never crossed paths (that I'm aware of), but I am inclined to believe Merridew's side of the story you've conveyed here would be different -- and somewhere in the middle of the two stories would likely be the truth. I'd even be inclined to believe the truth would be more favorable to the object of your hatred.

But thanks for the explanation (biased as it was).

[Ottava]

I see. So your hatred of Merridew and belief that he's contributed nothing good to Wikipedia is because he pissed you off. Your opinion about him is based on bias based on something you perceived he did to hurt you specifically.

Hatred? No. Annoyance? No. But it is obvious that he does stuff to hurt others. Trying to say that I have had personal experience with him disqualifies me from pointing out he did wrong is completely illogical.

It is odd that you would defend him so vigorously. You said you would defend his side of the story... but yet there is no side presented by him because it is obvious that his history is very blatant. You are a sock master and operated in the same abusive ways that he operated. Instead of claiming I am biased, you are the one biased. You want to destroy the legitimate reasons you were banned so you try to destroy the reasons he was banned. This is the equivalent of prisoners demanding that prisons be removed.

It is lovely how all of the abusive sock masters support each other. Such unity in your abuse!

[NotASpamBot]

Hatred? No. Annoyance? No. But it is obvious that he does stuff to hurt others.

Everyone does stuff in Wikipedia to hurt others. It's THE place to hurt others and get congratulated and awarded "barnstars" for it. If you're lucky, you might even get to be an administrator for your prowess in hurting others (where you will get to hone your skills at hurting others)!

Trying to say that I have had personal experience with him disqualifies me from pointing out he did wrong is completely illogical.

Not really. Bias is bias -- and bias causes one to see things subjectively which in turn causes one to be more hurtful when it comes to ones opinion of others. ;-)

It is odd that you would defend him so vigorously.

First of all: why is it odd? Secondly, I'm not defending him vigorously, I'm just saying that I never saw what you say you did. I just saw someone doing work no one else really wanted to do in order to improve the WP. I also saw someone targeted by some of the most loathsome WP "editors" ever in the history of WP.

You are a sock master and operated in the same abusive ways that he operated.

Such as? (I'm really interested in your answer, because I see nothing about Merridew and I that are the same at all).

You want to destroy the legitimate reasons you were banned

I wasn't legitimately banned. I was railroaded, my original block was manufactured and planned, and I was stupid enough to fall into the trap set for me.

It is lovely how all of the abusive sock masters support each other. Such unity in your abuse!

Such self-righteousness in your banishment... No wonder you're so universally disliked in this forum. :-D

[Ottava]

Everyone does stuff in Wikipedia to hurt others. It's THE place to hurt others and get congratulated and awarded "barnstars" for it.

Do you honestly think that is right? Your statements suggest you do. That is the only way I could rationalize your defense of Merridew.

Such self-righteousness in your banishment

I don't sock and wont sock. You socked quite a lot. You socked to wage war.

If one truly believes they have right on their side, they don't have to ever stoop to such tactics.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[NotASpamBot]

You socked quite a lot. You socked to wage war.

No, I didn't. I socked twice. One account for nearly a year, the other account concurrent with the other account. If you note, there were only two confirmed cases of socking through SPI via Checkuser (and both were the accounts I mentioned above). The others were "duck" assumptions and never were proven. More than one person (some of which who were administrators) believed my "enemies" in Wikipedia were creating IP and named accounts in order to make it look like I was socking. Did you know that I actually received death threats from at least one of my detractors via email? And, in fact, a large number of socks attributed to me actually belonged to "Bruce Jenner", who - for whatever reason - had an obsession with me and was nailed several times for vandalizing my Skagit River Queen user page quite a while before I was indeffed.

As far as waging war: not. Both sock accounts were good accounts and I made a many good edits, wrote a number of good articles, contributed a lot of really good photos.

But, if you want to wave your self-righteous flag here, knock yourself out. No one here is squeaky clean when it comes to the WP. If they were, they wouldn't be here to begin with.

This post has been edited by NotASpamBot:

[Ottava]

You socked quite a lot. You socked to wage war.

No, I didn't. I socked twice. One account for nearly a year, the other account concurrent with the other account. If you note, there were only two confirmed cases of socking through SPI via Checkuser (and both were the accounts I mentioned above). The others were "duck" assumptions and never were proven.

An innocent person would have said they were false assumptions and that you were offended by them.

[NotASpamBot]

You socked quite a lot. You socked to wage war.

No, I didn't. I socked twice. One account for nearly a year, the other account concurrent with the other account. If you note, there were only two confirmed cases of socking through SPI via Checkuser (and both were the accounts I mentioned above). The others were "duck" assumptions and never were proven.

An innocent person would have said they were false assumptions and that you were offended by them.

Obviously, attempting to talk to you about any of this is an exercise in the ridiculous. In fact, it's akin to speaking clear and concise advanced English with someone who is an ELL, rather an adult who claims English as their first language.

Believe what you will. I'm speaking truthfully.

[Detective]

Obviously, attempting to talk to you about any of this is an exercise in the ridiculous. In fact, it's akin to speaking clear and concise advanced English with someone who is an ELL

+1

[Ottava]

Obviously, attempting to talk to you about any of this is an exercise in the ridiculous. In fact, it's akin to speaking clear and concise advanced English with someone who is an ELL

+1

Nice to see you support a nasty sock master.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Detective]

Nice to see you support a nasty sock master.

Ottava, I realise that English is not your first language. You might like to know that native speakers of English would call this an ad hominem argument, where you are trying to discredit an argument by insulting the person who makes it, rather than addressing the argument itself. Whether or not NotASpamBot is nasty, his point is valid and I am entitled to agree with it.

[Ottava]

Nice to see you support a nasty sock master.

Ottava, I realise that English is not your first language. You might like to know that native speakers of English would call this an ad hominem argument, where you are trying to discredit an argument by insulting the person who makes it, rather than addressing the argument itself. Whether or not NotASpamBot is nasty, his point is valid and I am entitled to agree with it.

The character of an individual is necessary to understand any argument. The Federalist Papers makes it clear that we vote on a character of a person and not what they say.

You are a nasty sock master and you support other nasty sock masters. You have broken the law in real life and done some of the worst things. Why ever you think trying to make hilariously bad attempts at barbs like the above (it is Latin, not English) shows how pathetic you really are.

You are a joke. You always will be a joke no matter what name you use. Enjoy.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[The Joy]

(IMG:http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/xeno0000/Piers_Lifestories_Simon1.jpg)

You are a nasty sock master and you support other nasty sock masters. You have broken the law in real life and done some of the worst things. Why ever you think trying to make hilariously bad attempts at barbs like the above (it is Latin, not English) shows how pathetic you really are.

You are a joke. You always will be a joke no matter what name you use. Enjoy.

Tarc, you promised us that you would destroy this forum if this crap continued. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif)

[Tarc]

Tarc, you promised us that you would destroy this forum if this crap continued. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif)

Yea, I actually did attempt to the other day but found that this site still has limitations on inline image linking; not surprisingly lemonparty.org isn't on the whitelist. Photobucket is, but I didn't feel like loading images of old men sucking cock into my own account.

I'll load up a dummy account for next time, then bombs away.

[The Joy]

Tarc, you promised us that you would destroy this forum if this crap continued. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif)

Yea, I actually did attempt to the other day but found that this site still has limitations on inline image linking; not surprisingly lemonparty.org isn't on the whitelist. Photobucket is, but I didn't feel like loading images of old men sucking cock into my own account.

I'll load up a dummy account for next time, then bombs away.

Can't. Selina hasn't allowed any new accounts since April last year. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[Retrospect]

Yea, I actually did attempt to the other day but found that this site still has limitations on inline image linking; not surprisingly lemonparty.org isn't on the whitelist. Photobucket is, but I didn't feel like loading images of old men sucking cock into my own account.

I'll load up a dummy account for next time, then bombs away.

Can't. Selina hasn't allowed any new accounts since April last year. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Oh, I thought Tarc was talking about a dummy Photobucket account.

[The Joy]

Yea, I actually did attempt to the other day but found that this site still has limitations on inline image linking; not surprisingly lemonparty.org isn't on the whitelist. Photobucket is, but I didn't feel like loading images of old men sucking cock into my own account.

I'll load up a dummy account for next time, then bombs away.

Can't. Selina hasn't allowed any new accounts since April last year. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Oh, I thought Tarc was talking about a dummy Photobucket account.

Ah... yes... he could do that as well. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)