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!