Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ratel

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jabbsworth (talk | contribs) at 14:53, 29 November 2011 (→Comments by other users: rsp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ratel/Archive.

  – A checkuser is in the process of checking relevant users.

22 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


New user with 436 edits - and intersecting [1] 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 [2] 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 [3] 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 [4] 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia is healthy considering his opinions on WP:BLP etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
I should add that this entry here is part of a content dispute. Collect deleted [5] and has continued to delete [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

  • 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? - Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Distributive sock puppeteers is my pet dislike. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Note that this is his historic attitude: [11] 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.[12][13][14] 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 [15]. 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 see 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)[reply]
WP policies and guidelines, when one quotes another editor on a noticeboard of any type, it is polite (even required) to notify them of such. That you decide to grasp at red herrings here does not alter the fact that you have had at least ten usernames on Wikipedia, that you were caught using them to violate WP:BLP, that you were caught using them to cast !votes at an AfD discussion, that you decide to attack others rather than admit fault on your own part. Cheers - I trust the patrolling admin will see your smoke for what it is. Collect (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last reply to Collect: I have never used another account for the purpose of violating BLP. I only used them to avoid stalkers and hounders, and as you know, you were one of the worst (and still are), and I told you so on your userpage a few times. I did make an error on a double vote, but apologised, as it was a genuine error on my part. That's what happens when you work on many computers, use separate accounts to try to avoid stalkers and hounders, while running a busy life, and taking disorienting painkillers, as I was at the time (post-op). You'll scoff at that, but it's the truth. I don't know why I have to revisit all this again ... As for attacking others, I seem to remember you being chastised for something similar. Do I need to refer people to your catastrophic RfC ?  Jabbsworth  15:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I ratify myself. I find against the purpose and also very naive that someone who claims to be trying to avoid hounding and outing and even serious threats, however comes back again to edit the same articles, editing them in the same way, so changing his username and using sockpuppets becomes absolutely useless, except for disrupt other users. So, I also find that the way to protect this user should not be in detriment of the other users, since each violation to the WP-rules commited by a new sockpuppet has been treated as it was his first violation thus giving him a free card to repeatedly disrupt other user, to violate BLP policies, to push POV contents, to attack users with crass comments, to deceive Afd requests, to deceive users by coming to the same articles feigning as a new user while repeating the old arguments, to waste users time by re-opening already closed discussions which led to sanction his past sockpuppets, etc. Perhaps the best way to protect everybody, including Ratel-Jabbsworth, is to ban this user from those topics. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Claudio, really, pot calling the kettle black. You were banned from interacting with me until recently, and so many editors objected to your behaviour that you are current on a 6 month topic ban on a wide range of topics. I, like many, opposed you, so you now see fit to stalk me here and throw whatever fuel on the fire that you can.  Jabbsworth  15:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am just suggesting an efficient way to protect everybody. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line here is that:

  1. I was cleared to edit by arbcom, and I have not broken any rules at WP since then, despite Collect's breathless attacks and reports.
  2. My submission of data to be added to Matt Drudge met with partial approval by a number of editors at BLPN, as I expected (they all suggested shortening, which I accept).
  3. I last edited the Matt Drudge page over 18 months ago. The complainers here, however (Collect and Off2riorob, who seem to mutually support each other in numerous venues, eg [16] ), have censored the material in question numerous times in the last 18 months [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24], against the wishes of many editors (no, those editors are NOT my socks, as alleged above by Collect, and I ask sysops to check IPs please. The so-called socks were BozellHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), IP 128.223.163.126, Diperez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), IP 210.50.206.23, IP 68.40.251.98, Dubson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to name a few).
  4. Editors commenting above have combative histories with me:
    1. ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is topic banned for 6 months from a wide list of topics and has a long history of extremely tendentious, often barely comprehensible editing.
    2. As for Collect —one of the editors who prompted my use of distributive socking because of his hounding and stalking— please see his RfC to see how many editors he has upset and driven from the project. Take everything he says cum grano salis.
    3. Novangelis edits in a highly tendentious way and butted heads with me on the aspartame articles, especially Aspartame controversy. See my ANI complaint here [25]. The aspartame articles have been taken to ANI many times because of the same issue, by other editors [26] [27] and many more entries. The tag team involved are: User:Brangifer, User:Yobol, User:Dbrodbeck, User:The Four Deuces and User:Novangelis. (Note: Aspartame is a $1B/year product on its own, but its acceptance in the public is critical for the success of a number of diet soda pop manufacturers, including PepsiCo and The Coca-Cola Company inter alia — IOW many billions of dollars at stake here, so the situation is not that surprising. Sysops are urged to see the vast extent of cited yet tag-team-excluded data at the SourceWatch.org page on Aspartame).

So bottom line is that this entire sock investigation was unnecessary, caused by Collect's personal dislike of me and his ignorance of Arbcom decision. All other comments above are added by old enemies for partisan reasons, and can be discounted.  Jabbsworth  01:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mud is the final word? First - I did not seek you out. You appeared unbidden with four edits on my user talk page, apparently upset that I take WP:BLP seriously. 2. Arbcom did not say "oh, go ahead and bviolate WP policies because you are now immune." Thay can not do that, and they did not do that. Nor can anyone have been expected to know of an "ArbCom decision which was never posted. 3. Your "partial approval" for the wholesale re-addition of material which had been removed before due to WP:BLP should reasonably have made you think that you would need CONSENSUS first - which you did not have, do not have, and are unlikely (per WP:BLP ever to have. 4. Your attempt to attack everyone else under the sun further shows that Jimbo was right when the first ran across you, and that Gwen Gale was right when she noted you absolute violation of the WP:BLP policies. 5. As you were the one to direct us to Sourcewatch, to a brand new article which used you precise edits, it is reasonable for others to note that fact. This is not OUTING as you yell ("outing" is giving personal information, which did not in any way occur at all) your mudslinging arguments about it fail miserably. 5. I am not a partisan "enemy" but when you attack everyone else as such, it makes some wonder whether your "accidental socking:" was all that accidental in the past. In short - your last post here does you no favours at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Am I being accused of being a part of some international aspartame conspiracy here? This gets tiring. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So Jabbsworth has made ONE edit at Aspartame controversy [28] (a good one which I've just improved), yet alludes to previous problems there, apparently under other guises, AND also points us to SourceWatch?!?! Is this Ticklemeister again? Holy f@#king mother of g-d,.... ban, block and burn any and all socks. I hate them. Is this user really allowed by ArbCom to edit using several accounts, or is that just a claim? I'm also beginning to think that SourceWatch should be blacklisted. It's so unreliable and is automatically not considered a RS anyway. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Predictable comment. Ticklemeister's data is all at SourceWatch now, all cited, all correct. And apparently, so dangerous to the profitability of aspartame and various soda companies that SourceWatch should be "blacklisted" and I should be "burned"! Sweet Jeebus, I can't believe how far you'd go!  Jabbsworth  23:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not predictable at all. I have no financial or other interests in protecting Aspartame. I don't use the stuff, and I hardly even use much sugar in my coffee. My interest is solely in using only the best sources and following our sourcing policies. I just wish that SourceWatch did the same, since I largely share its justified skepticism of corporate interests and the fascist takeover that is occurring in the American financial and right wing political system. SourceWatch should only be blacklisted in the same way we do with other sources that are constantly being misused, since they are always unreliable sources, in the same way we consider Wikipedia itself to be an unreliable source. It is the sources used at SourceWatch and at Wikipedia that are considered reliable or not, and Wikipedia has higher standards than SourceWatch does. You should be cleaning up your own backyard over there. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had lost my mind, so yes it seems then that there has been one edit by this user. If this is indeed TM, yeah I agree, block and ban. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you agree.    Jabbsworth  23:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcewatch article on Aspartame was written entirely by "Scribe" who describes himself as an admin on Sourcewatch. The same person who created the "Matt Drudge" article. And the same person as Jabbsworth per his own comments. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A detective, apparently.  Jabbsworth  23:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SourceWatch has become (by default (?)) the place to go for sources that have been deemed unreliable at Wikipedia, IOW Wikipedia's garbage can. It's quite the mixed bag, and a refuge for anyone who's been blocked, banned, or otherwise rebuffed in their attempts to misuse Wikipedia to publish their OR or use it for soapboxing. It should be placed in the same box of websites we don't want linked here, just as we do with hate sites and attack sites.
The above only relates to its use as a source here. Otherwise, as a liberal/progressive/Social Democrat, I support its efforts and just wish it would enforce stricter sourcing policies. By allowing poor sourcing, it lowers its credibility. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can support this statement? You have a list of editors who now write for SourceWatch because they were banned here? I find it ironic that you would talk about "misusing wikipedia" when you compare the horribly POV and inaccurate article at WP called Aspartame controversy to the extensive and thoroughly sourced article at SourceWatch on aspartame. SourceWatch is able to give a far clearer view of many subjects because the content is not constantly edit warred by people paid to remove it, that's the difference. No, it's not NPOV, because it's written from a left-leaning, anti-corporate, anti-fascist perspective, as is their right. I can see how some would regard that as a "garbage can" though. But calling it a "hate" site is risible.  Jabbsworth  23:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have "a list", but I know that it happens. They find refuge there and on various lists they discuss this situation. They are pretty open about it. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since User:TickleMeister has also edited the SourceWatch article, I suggest all edits there be gone through with a fine-toothed comb, possibly comparing wordings with wordings at SourceWatch.org, and who made the edits there. We might uncover more socks. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go right ahead, I welcome it.  Jabbsworth  23:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jabbsworth, Unless you have proof, I would like you to strike the comment that anyone has been paid to work on any article. Please. I am not a paid corporate shill, and I see no evidence that anyone else here is. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of me calling COI / paid editing on several editors over Aspartame was all discussed at a noticeboard a long time ago. It's on record, so striking it is redundant. You have made yourself part of a tag team that reverted out screeds of well cited data. I have no idea if you are paid or not, but when I searched my mind for reasons for this sort of persistent tendentiousness, exhibited over months and in some cases years against numerous edits by several editors, I could only come up with one logical conclusion. This is not the place to re-raise the issues discussed on noticeboards, as you flail about looking for something to pin on me.  Jabbsworth  00:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No corporate shill here either. This is totally a hobby. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • At least, it should be seriously considered to ban Jabbsworth/Ratrl/TickleMeister/OzOke/... from any BLP topic. That is one sensible topic. It has emerged this and other concerns from other users. Then, it should be considered that this sort of unblocks of recurrent sockpuppeteers should be consulted and discussed with the community. Is it "barely comprehensible"? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not part of a tag team and have no particular fondness for the manufacturers of aspartame. I have not even been involved in this SPI. TFD (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Am I missing something? As far as I can see, nobody (including Jabbsworth) seems to be disputing that Jabbsworth is Ratel. Despite this, Jabbsworth's account was unblocked in late July by David Fuchs (talk · contribs) (a member of WP:ARBCOM) with the rationale "User has promised to edit solely from this account" (see [29]). The appropriateness of this unblock (and other aspects of Jabbsworth's behaviour since) can of course be subject to discussion, but this page wouldn't be the proper venue to do so. If I'm not mistaken, the investigation on this page should centre around whether there's a suspicion that Jabbsworth has opened up new sockpuppet accounts. An SPI with the sole purpose of concluding that Ratel is Jabbsworth seems entirely meaningless, since everyone seems to agree that they are. Gabbe (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. . This SPI was filed without Jabbsworth previously admitting he was Ratel.
  2. . The Arbcom "decision" was never posted, so that this SPI was absolutely properly filed.
  3. . Jabbsworth avers that he admitted all of his socks, and thus determining whether this is true or not is absolutely proper here at SPI.
  4. . Jabbsworth promised to obey all strictures on the blocked accounts - one of which was specifically to abide by WP:BLP.
  5. . Jabbsworth has specificaly not abided by WP:BLP.
  6. . Jabbsworth as Ratel was under a stricture to edit civilly. His personal attacks on Gwen Gale etc. are specific violations of that stricture, so therefore he has not abided by any unpublished agreemnet with ArbCom allowing this socking to continue.
  7. . Wikipedia has a long-standing position that any admin can block a sock which was established to contravene an indefinite block. Many Ratel socks have been so blocked, and there is no reason to believe that Jabbsworth is the only current sock other than his assurance that he is not doing so.
  8. . Jabbsworth appears to admit that he is also a "sourcewatch admin" who has violated Wikipedia copyright by asserting his own authorship of several articles on sourcewatch which are in whole or in part taken from Wikipedia. Use of a sock for copyright violation is specifically not ignorable by Wikipedia and SPI is a proper venue thereon.
SPI is the only venue for Wikipedia to determine if he is telling the truth this time, when he did not tell the truth before on a number of socks. [30] shows him iterating personal attacks. [31] an implication that the people who dislike his edits cause "drive-by vandalism". [32] has him reposting a BLP violation on the BLP/N page - he averred he idd not know that posting a BLP violation makes no difference which page it is on, but Ratel had been told that a very long time ago, and it is not a "new rule" by any means.
And his post at BLP/N:
Gwen Gale? She was blocked many, many times before herself, and was even restricted by ArbCom. To use Jimbo's term, Gwen has verified that she has a poisonous personality. You'll note that she quickly unblocked me too, and I have never contravened BLP again. And this Herman Cain edit hardly violates BLP, from my reading, especially if shortened. Jabbsworth 12:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Verifies that he specifically chose to violate WP:BLP and that he has no intent at all to obey the strictures on Ratel to abide by WP:BLP. And the violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are clear.
David Fuchs stated that any return to behaviour associated with Ratel being under any strictures is usable in seeking a block - so that appears to mean that this venue does, indeed, have the authority and obligation to deal with this melange caused by a sockmaster of long standing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'd better respond to this vitriol.

  1. Points 1-3 do not require response.
  2. Point 4 and 5, BLP, is incorrect. The original Matt Drudge material was long argued on Talk, and would not have got onto the page for a year or summat without consensus. Yes, consensus changes, and it was removed by Collect, who then re-removed it numerous times against the edits of many editors, which seem to suggest that consensus remained for inclusion. This item is also at BLPN, and the only non-aligned comments are for inclusion, albeit adumbrated.
  3. Point 6, about Gwen Gale, was no uncivil. It was in response to your repeated raising of her block on me, a block which lasted a couple of hours. You kept mentioning her name as if there was something talismanic about her being, and I simply pointed out her own long history of blocks and what Jimbo had said about her, thus pointing out her block of me was not the Voice of God making a pronouncement about me. This is not uncivil.
  4. Point 7 is speculation, a fishing expedition.
  5. Point 8 is incorrect. SW may use content from WP articles under the terms of the GFDL.
  6. The rest of your comments re-hash the BLP canard and the Gwen Gale comment.

It's all hand waving, Collect, and I hope the sysops here can see it. I am not in contravention of any rule, I am not editing disruptively, and despite your assertion that the material for Matt Drudge is a BLP infraction, it's not. It's also carried at Anderson Cooper under consensus, and merely one of many examples.  Jabbsworth  14:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another concern: Jabbsworth claims that ArbCom has unblocked him because their 6-sockpuppets were a way to avoid wiki and real stalking and even real threats. If that is the case, then should we assume that actually it is true that all those users, repeatedly accused by Jabbsworth of stalking and accused of being a sort of paid employees of a corporation deleting uncomfortable contents, they are indeed that and they are really doing that? Well, at least the last accusations raised by Jabbsworth accusing some users of stalking and hounding were determined to be personal attacks from Jabbsworth, see here. If that was not the purpose of his unblock at any rate it seems actually Ratel/TickleMesiter/Ozoke/Jabbsworth assumes that he has free card to repeat those nasty accusations as if they were a truth just confirmed by his unblock. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Claudio, you really are a super-disruptive user who is blocked from editing almost every page you used to edit. Your "contributions" here are tedious and unwelcome, and like Collect, motivated by malice and past content disputes.  Jabbsworth 
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)[reply]
  • Is there a BASC decision someone can link to that says Ratel/Ticklemeister/whatever is unbanned? If not, as far as I'm concerned, Jabbsworth should be indeffed. If arbcom is going to overturn a long-standing de facto community ban, at least they should get their paperwork in order. T. Canens (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ratel&oldid=463111924"