Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:48, 23 November 2011

Ratel

Ratel (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ratel/Archive.

– This SPI case is open.

22 November 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

• Jabbsworth (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

New user with 436 edits - and intersecting at

1. .Action_T4
2. .Euthanasia
3. .Exit_International
4. .Ian_Dowbiggin
5. .Jack_Kevorkian
6. .Matt_Drudge
7. .Non-voluntary_euthanasia
8. .Philip_Nitschke

and talk pages at .Suicide_bag 10.Talk:Action_T4 11.Talk:Euthanasia 12.Talk:Ian_Dowbiggin 13.Talk:Suicide_bag 14.User talk:Collect 15.User talk:EdJohnston 16.User talk:Georgewilliamherbert

Including exact edits made by Ratel with edit summary from this new user of:

This material was actually run past Jimbo at the time, and no objections were raised. You'll have to dig in the archives to find all the blow-by-blow. The sourcing is good

Similar edits to Ratel are found at the other articles - this user has a majority of all his edits on ones which Ratel edited, and the edits are similar in nature to his, and the edit summaries also. See for example with the edit summary of Another source, and there are more to come ... I do not see this as an urgent BLP issue. Dowbiggin has allowed these statements to stand for 8 years at sites he supports Jabbsworth was also IDed as Ratel at by Night of the Big Wind. As a result of which Jabbsworth was topic banned for 3 months from all the Euthanasia articles.

Note also Your baiting me will not work. I seriously doubt that ArbCom ever approved your creating the TickleMeister account two days after you were blocked for sockpuppetry in a !vote as Ratel/Unit5. If I'm wrong, ArbCom can correct me.Novangelis (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In short - admirable evidence for Jabbsowrth being a sock of banned Ratel, and Jabbsworth appears to have been named as a sock of Ratel by several other editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Also Jabbsworth states he has a total of about 12,000 edits - precisely in line with Ratel who is blocked for being a sockmaster. Cheers - I dinna think that his position on Misplaced Pages is healthy considering his opinions on WP:BLP etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• I refer the patrolling admin to Arbcom. I have discussed my socks and history with them, explained why they were necessary (and they were, for my own safety — real life stalking), and was cleared to edit. Collect is not aware of all this history. Ask Shell Kinney and Chase me Ladies. Thanks.  Jabbsworth  03:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I should add that this entry here is part of a content dispute. Collect deleted and has continued to delete , against the wishes of many editors, well sourced material that Jimbo Wales saw and did not say should be deleted. So if we are talking about what's "healthy" for WP, I'd venture that it's Collect, the right wing party apparatchik (or so it seems to me), who spends all his time reverting RS-sourced material from the bios of his like-minded brethren, who is, in fact, the truly unhealthy presence on WP. Jabbsworth  03:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And all the other articles you and Ratel shared the identical POV edits on? And all your edit summaries in similar language? And your "12,000 edits" claim parallel to Ratel? And since Ratel was the only editor making the edits making a point that Drudge is a self-hating homosexual, and since User:Collect/BLP has some of the comments made by Ratel and his prior incarnation, I suggest that the evidence is rock-solid. Drudge was stable for a very long period without all the "expose tabloid material. Since March 2011 when the material was re-added by another sock (BozellHammer) and before that June 2010 when it was re-added by "Dubson" who had a total of 10 edits and is likely a sock. Ratel is essentially banned - if Jabbsworth is claiming a "clean start" he is violating the rules to an excessive extent, and should be blocked for doing so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Appending: Calling me "right wing" is absurd if one looks at the range of BLPs I have edited - including Johann Hari, Chris Huhne, etc. But it is entirely proof that Jabbsworth is Ratel, and is up to his traditional mode of attacking other editors without any sound reasoning. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You make several errors, Collect.

1. Not just I, but at least 6 or 7 editors in the last year have tried to re-insert that material about Drudge. It is not BLP-infringing material, as you know (which is why you ignore my request to take it to BLPN). We have very similar material at Anderson Cooper, where it has been for many years without complaint.
2. I've told you that you are meddling with something you know nothing about. I think you should let the admins look into this via Arbcom as I suggested.
3. I don't think anyone has used the phrase "self-hating homosexual" until now. That's an interesting inference on your part.
4. I have nothing to do with BozellHammer or Dubson, whoever they are. I welcome checks.
5. I was not given an instruction by Arbcom not to edit Matt Drudge.
6. Your edit history clearly shows your partisan editing style. No need for me to belabor it; it's there in plain sight.

Hope this makes some things clearer.  Jabbsworth  04:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have now taken it to where this dispute belongs, BLPN diff. The phrasing there is more an attack on me than a query about the problem at hand, though. Pity. Also a pity that you started this sock investigation and the BLPN thing without telling me. Are there new rules at WP about that too? I thought informing involved editors was at the very least a courtesy.  Jabbsworth  04:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The ones who re-added your exact words were socks. That you say that they were not provably your socks tells everyone a great deal about your attitude toward Misplaced Pages. And I am more than willing to have an admin here examine my last 19,000 edits to see how "partisan" I am LOL! And from my list of comments made by one specific editor (all the following were made by that one editor) : it's probably a duck (your peregrinations in gay bars notwithstanding, None of this stuff is legally actionable under any circumstances, so you are not right to revert on the basis of your (slanted?) idea of what "notable" means. G*ddamned conservatives trying to sanitize the wikipedia, ruining it in the process, There is a disjunction between the W thing and the gay aspects, but the Toronto Times's retracted sentence would have linked them nicely. I f have to use it as a link. Forced retraction? Papers only retract and apologize when it's demanded of them, rest assured and more.

Note that this is exceedingly strong evidence, and ArbCom can not give a waiver on policy violations as flagrant as this. Ratel/Jabbsworth/TickleMeister/Unit5 etc. are all likely the same. All with the same incivility. And all ought to be blocked.

And now Ratel has posted the WP:BLP violation at length and with a BIG heading to make sure that everyone see that Drudge has these allegations. And carps that I posted at BLP/N when he asked me to. Occam's Razor tells us precisely what to do with this sock. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• The consensus, until you commented on BLPN, was that much of the data was usable. So it's is not a BLP vio (BTW it was on the matt Drudge page for a long time until YOU deleted it and then campaigned to have it removed at BLPN. Those other editors WERE NOT my socks, ok! I'm not sure where you are getting all those quotes, and what they are about, but it's not material for this page, as far as I can tell. You seem to be confusing me with other people. I notice that you keep trying to influence admin decisions here with big hints and nudges. Please stop. This is a content dispute and the arguments are weak.  Jabbsworth  13:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC

• - I don't think this case is disputed and has previously been verified? - Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/TickleMeister - Jabbsworth was Ratel - and all the other sockpuppets. Jabbsworth seems to have agreed to edit under one account and been allowed to edit and unless he has returned to some new socking there is nothing new to action ? Am I missing something? Jabbsworth was a sock of TickleMeister that account was created less than 48 hours after Ratel was blocked for sockpuppetry, the TickleMeister account was always a block-evading sockpuppet, it was never eligible for any unblock and neither were any of its sockpuppets either. Jabbsworth should never have been allowed to edit - he' s a disruptive sock of a blocked sockmaster - he has returned to exactly the same behavior of the previous disruptive accounts. I suggest checkuser him to see if he has sleepers and indef him. Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

All the usual suspects are turning up to make accusations and urge censorship and bans. Arbcom are aware of every account I have had. Multiple accounts were a way for me to try to avoid persistent hounding, stalking, and real life threats. This has all been discussed before, I don't need to re-litigate here. I will say, again, that the tolerance of stalking and hounding on WP is perhaps its greatest weakness. I dare say many "socks" exist because of it...  Jabbsworth  22:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Distributive sock puppeteers is my pet dislike. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you making any accusations about Rob or I? If not - then your dramah "I am being threatened" is grossly out of place here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that this is his historic attitude: elicited this response from Jimbo:

it would perhaps be helpful if you weren't so transparently here with an axe to grind. ... A general dislike for someone's political opinions or whatever is no cause to write a hatchet job about them. 14:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

From before my time -- where Ratel and prior names had exactly the same problems and made the same accusations about other editors. Isn't four years long enough - when his behaviour remains exactly the same? And where he shows no remorse for using socks to make !votes at AfD? Cheersm - but saying "well this time he really, really promised to behave when he clearly has not been behaving is a teensy bit ludicrous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• The tone of this page is getting a little hysterical, so I'm out. I have too much going on in real life to continue. If arbcom wish to revisit my participation based on my cuurent edits, I'm fine with that.  Jabbsworth  23:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• If Arbcom and other administration instances were disposed to hear and consider Ratel explanations, up to finally unblock him, despite he actually did use 6 sockpuppets, then should Arbcom and other administratios also hear what have to say all the users who have been affected by this behaviour. If I find absurd and against the purpose that someone who claims to be trying to avoid hounding and outing however comes back again to edit the same articles, editing them in the same way, so changing his username and using sockpuppets becomes useless; then at any rate the point is that actually the complains about Ratel goes far beyond than his recurrent use of sockpuppets and the disruptive effects this behaviour implies itself even if those effects were not his purpose. Ratel's sockpuppets have been object of numerous complains and blocks and even bans due lack of civility, edit warring, BLP violations, POV pushing, an other forms of disruption. If really Ratel did need to use 6 sockpuppets, then I can not afford that he was also allowed to use each of those sockpuppets to disrupt other users. Finally, if it is not Ratel's purpose to clean his record out of his blocks, indeed it is serving to that purpose because it seems each violation he commits using a new sockpuppet is treated as it was his first violation of the wikipedia rules. At least even to protect him from the claimed stalking but also to protect other users affected by his behaviour, perhaps he should be banned from those topics, at less. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Putting aside the extensive history of incivility which is not the purpose of this board, I will briefly address the issue of abusive sockpuppetry:

The block for the Ratel/Unit 5 !vote is straightforward and the creation of TickleMeister immediately after had nothing to do with stalking.

Creating User:AllYrBaseRbelongUs and editing archives had nothing to do with stalking.

Trying to negotiate a departure in exchange for an external link after creating the same sockpuppet had nothing to do with stalking.

In summary, there is a standing indefinite block that cannot be dismissed as avoiding stalking, and there is evidence of further abusive sockpuppetry after the block. I hope these pieces of the early history are of use in review.Novangelis (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I have to come back and comment one more time. Novangelis, another editor who made sport of reverting my edits no matter how good the sourcing, and even took it upon himself, admin-like, to collapse many of my Talk page comments, entered an archive edit war to keep his collapse intact . Of course, he does not mention that. Why and how did he turn up here suddenly? Could it be he was canvassed in by Collect, perhaps by dropping a link to this page on his talk page? Yup. Nothing ever changes here, it seems. As for the external link to the Aspartame page at SourceWatch, you'll note that almost ALL the data at that page was excluded from Aspartame controversy by a tag team of editors, who have reverted this information hundreds of times, no matter who the editor is, over a period of years, in a workmanlike fashion. Published, peer-reviewed studies were never good enough sources, unless they were also review studies! (This flies in the face of what MEDRS says about using primary studies, which is that you can use them in many instances, and indeed they are used all over WP extensively, especially where they are not tag-teamed out). The talk pages at Talk:Aspartame controversy (just look at the archives!) show how intransigent and incorrigible the pro-corporate editing there has been. Disgraceful. I complained about it to a number of admins at the time, but was met with apathy. It seems that WP is vulnerable to organized editing by corporations, political groups and any paid hack. Consensus is so easy to fake. Editors are cheaply hired, especially when the profits are huge and WP pages come up so high on Google searches. And if that doesn't work, send a lawyer's letter to WP staff and then seem them fold. It's a situation ripe for abuse, and anyone who thinks this abuse is not happening is naive in the extreme. And if you stand persistently on corporate toes, as I have, expect to get odd phone calls in the middle of the night, threatening emails, and even, as happened to me, a bullet fired into the wall of your house in the middle of the night (no, I cannot be sure of who did this, but it strangely happened at the same time I was receiving the emails and editing certain articles (to remain unnamed).  Jabbsworth  08:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I'm looking into this at the moment. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases awaiting review