User talk:BostonMA/Mattisse/Evidence

November 9 by 999 as an example

Maybe something similar for HD, but really the RFC/Mattisse speaks for itself, except that HD has removed his part. Sincerely, Mattisse 02:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the first 4 items, regarding Peggy Sue are weak as evidenceo of harassment. The requirement that all assertions have reliable sources doesn't mean that reliable sources need to be in the form of citations. 999 pointed out that the assertion that you added the {{fact}} tag to was supported by the work mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph. These edits are compatible with an assumption of good faith on 999's part, i.e. a honest effort to improve the encyclopedia. I would argue that the Shivanasamudram diffs are similarly compatible with a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. In this case, 999 pointed out an existing article that referred to the same subject even though it had a different name. I will look at the other edits in a moment. --BostonMA ^talk 02:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same with this edit. Your citations needed tag was (in my opinion) appropriate and the removal was not. --BostonMA ^talk 02:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this diff I think shows a problem. The article is unsourced, and 999's removal of your tags was in my opinion wrong, and is likely to be seen wrong by observers. The fact that 999 was following you around, and disrupted improvement of an article carries more weight than 999 following you around and making improvements. More in a bit. --BostonMA ^talk 02:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is he was stalking me using my Contributon list, as Ars Scriptor pointed out. Those were not articles he was going to naturally. If you look at the articles he edited, those were completely out of character. That was one day where he followed me around. Here is Hanuman Das.

Using someone's contributions list in itself is not harassment. It is only harassment if it is disruptive. A further point about the coasters, that I think is very important to make, is that you not only added the citations missing tag, but also added images and other material to the article, which demonstrates that you were making positive contributions and were merely tagging the article to annoy someone. The one diff doesn't show that, but later diffs do. --BostonMA ^talk 02:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School where the school guy sent out a big mailing list to school people to stop the ADF. According to WP:SPAM, that is highly discouraged and the guy said he would not so that again. I think that is what that refers to. Where did you see that? Sincerely, Mattisse 02:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC) (I assume this goes here)(posted on wrong talk page -- I could swear I already struck this out!) Mattisse 14:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Harassment states:

Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior...(emphasis added)

...This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful.

--BostonMA ^talk 02:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of these?

Provided by the "new editor" with the IP and WendiWikiWiki from the SPAM ANI: A short summary:

Requests for arbitration Starwood 12-17-06 [18]

Sincerely, Mattisse 15:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 14 by Hanuman Das

[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]

I think that was a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School where the school guy sent out a big mailing list to school people to stop the ADF. According to WP:SPAM, that is highly discouraged and the guy said he would not so that again. I think that is what that refers to. Where did you see that? Sincerely, Mattisse 02:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC) (posted to wrong page)[reply]

On what justification was he following me around that day? And why did the Peggy Sue editor agree with him that I was disruptive? One of those people that he did the same thing to emailed me because she thought it was strange and ended up signing my RFC. He was stalking me. Well, I don't have to enter anything. If I stay away from India, I'll be O.K. anyway. Like that whole thing of Hanuman Das putting the sockpuppet tag on my user page one month after it expired, and your friend threatening to block me over it on Ekajati's word. Thank goodness for Salix alba who (among others) defended me on that one. Perhaps I should just let Salix alba do it again this time. In fact, I think that is what I will do. If I stay away from India, they will concentrate on the neopagans anyway. Let them take the heat. I think that is what I will do and stay out of it. Sincerely, Mattisse 03:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I were an arbiter in the case, I would attempt to see if any of the behavior that was pointed out was consistent with a good faith effort to contribute to the encyclopedia. I would note the fact that you were followed around. I would also look at the edits made by the person following you around to see if they were disruptive. If they appear to contribute to the encyclopedia, I might suggest that the editor involved be more considerate, but I would not consider it Wikipedia:harassment per the standard that harassment must be disruptive and not merely following a contributions list. That being said, I have not looked at all these edits yet. --BostonMA ^talk 00:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 9 revised

Hanuman Das

[63] 6:09 Hanuman Das tells me to stick a razor up my (body part) and is blocked.

999 (known to harass me and others on behalf of Hanuman Das) who has not had anything to do with these articles before except perhaps the last AdelaMae ones

[64] 17:28 - Peggy Sue - I had just written Jerry Allison which related to that article & had a better reference.
[65] 17:52 Razor
[66] 17:53 - Tom Collier
[67] 17:57 Sivasamudram
[68] 17:58 - Ruthless Rap Assassins
[69] 17:59 - The Coasters
[70] 18:29 - Peggy Sue
[71] 18:23 editor of Peggy Sue
[72] 18:31 - Sivasamudram
[73] 18:37 - Shivanasamudra
[74] 18:37 - Sivasamudram Falls
[75] 18:52 - editor of Peggy Sue
[76] 1853 - editor of Peggy Sue
[77] 22:09 re (→Re:Selena Fox & Phyllis Curott) to User talk:AdelaMae
[78] - same as above but different diff numbers
[79] 22:23 999 tells User Shane 1 why Hanuman Das is so pissed off at me

You wouldn't feel harassed if this were happening to you? Sincerely, Mattisse 15:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 14 (revised)

October 14

[80] 2:53
[81] 2:52
[82] 2:51
[83] 2:51
[84] 2:51
[85] 2:50
[86] 2:16
[87] 2:14
[88] 2:11
[89]2:09
[90] 2:09
[91]2:08
[92] 2:08
[93] 2:03
[94] 2:01
[95] 2:01
[96] 1:58
[97] 1:58
[98] 1:57
[99]1:56
[100]1:54
[101] 1:53
[102] 1:53
[103] 1:53
[104] 1:51
[105] 1:51
[106] 1:50
[107] 1:49

[108] 1:48
[109] 1:47
[110] 1:46
[111] 1:45
[112] 1:44
[113] 1:43
[114] 1:43
[115] 1:42

Does this not seem like stalking to you? He had no interest in or reason to think I was vandalising or spaming or reverting these articles. I really want to know if you think this is O.K. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think I will

Pigman entered into the arbitration/evidence the questions I have about checkuser and the fact there is no documentation of all those sockpuppets having been confirmed. I believe I have given you all the evidence. One sockpuppet was actually blocked as someone else's sockpuppet: User:Dattat on User:999's complaint to checkuser. So it is very difficult to understand.

Then there is your friend and the fact that it was HD who put the sockpuppet tag on my page to begin with:

September 3 - sockpuppet tag put on my page by User:Netsnipe
September 3 - removed by User:Rdsmith4 - the one with the list of my sockpuppets [116]
September 3 - replaced by User:Hanuman Das [117]
September 3 - I remove it [118]
September 3 - replaced by User:Salix alba [119]
September 3 - I remove it [120]
September 3 - my page protexted by User:DragonflySixtyseven to prevent further sockpuppet templates [121]
September 10 - my page unprotected by User:Netsnipe [122]
September 10 - sockpuppet tag replaced by User:Hanuman Das [123]
October 18 - I notice for first time that tag is there and remove it [124]
October 18 - replaced by User:Ekajati [125]
- I remove it [126]
- Ekajati replaces it [127]
- I remove it [128]
- Ekajati reverts page to prior sockpuppet tag by Netsnipe [129]
- I remove it again (this time the revert reveal bookmarks I had removed for the sake of privacy [130]
- It is replaced by User:Nishkid64 [131]
- I remove it [132]
- It is replaced by User:Ryulong [133]
- I remove it [134]
- Replaced by User:Nishkid64 [135]
- Then User:Nishkid64 protects page [136]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Puppetmaster Mattisse repeatedly removing puppetmaster tag where it is decided I can remove it and that I am being harassed by Admins and non admins playing cops.
I remove it [137]

So if it really was true that it had been confirmed that I was using all those sockpuppets to deliberately disrupt, how come I wasn't harshly blocked? (I was barely blocked - for less than 24 hours.) No one seemed to notice. In that light, I can see why HD thought I was the "little darling of Admins" or whatever he called me. Because, if I have been doing all the things they say, I should be blocked for good while. The fact is, hardly anyone really looks at evidence. It is a rare person, Pigman is one of them, Salix alba, TomTheHand, the "new editor" with the IP are the few others. They have stepped in so far and saved me. Salix alba is a wonderful person because he does it out of goodness. And he actually worries about Timmy12 who has been treated most unjustly. And TomTheHand the same, even though I and my troubles are a big bother to him. The "new editor" is marvelous because he is truly detached. He doesn't care and isn't going to ask if I'm from India or not.

So I have to trust that the ridiculous evidence will be apparent, and that Salix alba is right when he says they are shooting themselves in the foot. Wikipedia is so corrupt with so many intrenched interests that I really have no choice. If I try to defend myself, I am actually worse off. That's what Salix alba told me before -- that it is way better to say and do nothing.

I am really, I guess, just ventilating to you over the injustice of it all. But I think if I open my mouth any more than I have at the Arbitration, I will harm my side. Sorry for cluttering up your pages with all this. It's just to keep me from shooting myself in the head. Sorry to take up your time. (I think you do not know the feeling of being stalked -- especially since I just found out about User Contributions recently -- I thought I was going crazy on November 9.) Sincerely, Mattisse 01:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]