Ratel

Ratel (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
06 September 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by Marknutley
[edit]

[1] The behavioural evidence makes me think this is a sock of ratel, it is his sort of POV pushing. [2] It is trying to call any source which does not back his POV "Conservative" it just looks like his edits, a little ducky mark nutley (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC) mark nutley (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to provide further evidence in this case due to my withdrawal from CC related articles. May as well close it. sorry for the hassle caused mark nutley (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

WHAT THE HECK?!?!!?!? I've been watching Wikipedia from afar for a while and made a few IP edits from time to time. I finally signed up for an account a few weeks ago. This is the first contentious edit I have made and somehow it turns into a sock puppetry investigation??? That's seriously messed up..... Is there anything more that I can say? I am perfectly willing to try to find mutually agreeable language, but I am not willing to be subject to personal attacks over a simple disagreement. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a question, what does checkuser entail? While I have no concerns about the outcome of this investigation, one IP address that I edit from could be used to fairly trivially compromise my right to anonymity, which I value highly due to some unfortunate previous experiences elsewhere on the internet (and which is part of why I created an account in the first place rather than remaining an IP). The civil libertarian in me cries out to object at having personally identifiable information searched on the flimsy evidence that I used once the word "conservative" and was perfectly amenable to an alternate wording.... Sailsbystars (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read the blurb on defending oneself against such an inquiry, I would also like to mention in passing that this is a clear cut case of bad faith or at least failure to assume good faith. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the contribution history [3] for the only known sock of Ratel. It made no edits to political or climate change articles until the final edit, which was adding a picture of Fred Singer to the article, which contradicts Mark Nutley's already paltry evidence. I also looked over the editing history of Ratel [4]. The only similarity I can find is that I also tried to improve some articles involving climate change.

Also, I think it's deplorable that understanding the inner workings of wikipedia immediately leads to accusations of Sockpuppetry such as mark nutley has insinuated at my talk page [5]. I once had an excellent course in epistemology and found the origins of knowledge a fascinating subject. Thus when procrastinating I would surf both wikipedia mainspace and the talk pages, as I found HOW the pages were written to be just as interesting as what they were about. I'm not the first person who has faced immediate sock accusation for actually bothering to understand how this encyclopedia works and I think that more experienced users should keep in mind that there is no single level of newbness. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

mark nutley has not provided enough evidence. First of all he has provided no evidence about Ratel's behavior so that we could compare Sailsbystars to him. Secondly the one edit mark nutley provides does not appear to be POV-pushing. Sailsbystars points to an article used as a source for the the group he wants to be called conservative which says, "...the Weblog Awards basically started as the right-wing response to the Bloggies....the awards are run and promoted by a conservative media group.[6] Since the article involved was about a climate denial website that received an award, the political angle of the judges would seem to be relevant. TFD (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Clerk declined lack of evidence, and withdrawn by filer. I've taken a quick look though the contribs of both accounts here, doesn't seem to be anything to justify further investigation. Sailsbystars does demonstrate familiarity with wikipedia, however, that's best explained by the fact that they edited as an IP before registering an account (as they note above). Therefore marking as closed. SpitfireTally-ho! 12:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

13 September 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by Novangelis
[edit]

The TickleMeister account was created the day after Ratel was blocked.

There is an extended overlap of articles edited.
Bhut Jolokia pepper: Ratel; TickleMeister
Prostatitis: Ratel; TickleMeister
Chronic bacterial prostatitis: Ratel; TickleMeister
CP/CPPS: Ratel; TickleMeister (first edit after own pages)
Calcific tendinitis: Ratel over the previously identified sockpuppet, User 5 (talk · contribs); TickleMeister
Philip Nitschke: Ratel; TickleMeister


The Stealthcupcake single-purpose account was created four minutes after TickleMeister’s first edit in several days.

A request for an outside opinion which noted TickleMeister’s contribution; the ignored recommendation was ignored in favor of TickleMeister’s advice.

TickleMeister was singled out in the account’s parting shot.


Basis for checkuser request: Block evasion. Previous abuse in vote discussions resulting in the current block of Ratel. Using extra accounts to create the appearance of "many of us". Novangelis (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

TickleMeister and Stealthcupcake are Red X Unrelated. I am fairly sure that both of these accounts are Red X Unrelated to Ratel, but the log is somewhat inconclusive. J.delanoygabsadds 02:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

07 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

[7] shows a new user hitting 8 separate articles previously edited by User:Ratel, including such edits as [8], [9], [10] (all edits are in line with User:Ratel's edit history - this one is interesting as showing Twinkle use by a "new editor"), [11] (also Twinkle and lso precisely a Ratel position edit), and including articles with very few editors ever involved other than Ratel. Odds of a "new user" hitting 8 out of 13 articles all intersecting User:Ratel, and having edits all conforming to Ratel's edits, and having the WP knowledge to make a user page and user talk page to show bluelinks is remote. Collect (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can the behaviour be sufficient here? Collect (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I've actually done a connect the dots which I believe demonstrates that Ratel is in fact:

In addition to the content of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ratel/Archive#13 September 2010. I think I can make this sound enough to be of use.

  1. TickleMeister took credit for an article written on another wiki as sole author.
  2. The article shows a single author "Scribe"
  3. User:Scribe has a subpage detailing interaction with another Wikipedia user named "Alex", including this text, "I still can't work out if you're genuinely skeptical but misguided, or if something more sinister is afoot." and in reply, "Um, I've already seen that. It appears to be a dreadful straw man argument. 'Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped..."
  4. That text can be found on Wikipedia in this exchange with Ratel: User talk:Alexh19740110#Motives (diff)

If this is enough to establish the connection that Ratel is TickleMeister, it may be possible to use TickleMeister to establish a connection to OzOke by checkuser. Additionally, there is another account that has produced odd edits indicating possible bobbles in account juggling.

In addition to editing articles that Ratel/TickleMeister edited, there is this odd edit that has the appearance of editing a user page from the wrong account. In the lone edit on one page, Euthanasia device, there is a revert to OzOke's version. (TickleMeister and Ratel also edited the page.)

If my count is right, RxWatch has edited 8 unique articles of which these 5 have a past edit by TickleMeister, Ratel, or both (including the non-urology article above).
Prostatitis
Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome
Interstitial cystitis
Pudendal nerve entrapment

The RxWatch and OzOke accounts were created two days apart shortly after the last Ratel sockpuppetry accusation. I think there are sufficient anomalous behaviors to suspect that there could be other accounts, as well, as each account seems to have a limited scope of articles, possibly to avoid the pattern of editing in unrelated subjects noted in the previous accusation.Novangelis (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
But User:TickleMeister was recently editing and user:OzOke, another of his supicious puppets, is currently editing. therefore I asked for a checkuser on user:TickleMeister and user:OzOke, and should be done soon before User:TickleMeister's editions become stale too. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I initially declined this, Ticklemeister hadn't been mentioned at all. But this does seem suspicious, so I'll endorse. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should User:RxWatch also be listed?Novangelis (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only started as a checkuser at the start of the year, so my findings should be verified, however:

and also:

are all  Confirmed. PhilKnight (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Based on behavioural evidence and technical evidence:
are all  Confirmed socks of TickleMeister (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).
I've blocked and tagged accordingly. The Cavalry (Message me) 01:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14 March 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

BozellHammer first appeared on 23 Dec 2010. One of his first acts was to make his user page a bluelink, thus he is unlikely to be a new user. He made controversial edits to Nicholas Ballasy repeatedly making it a stub. I ran across him at Matt Drudge where he inserted a lengthy and contentious section asserting Drudge is homosexual [12] with edit summary: rv. BLP does not mean "remove everything I don't want." And this has been discussed to death. Consensus was to include.) wherein he makes a statement that removal a year ago was opposed in the archives.

The main proponent of that section was User:Ratel.

He then reverted the change to the stable version with [13] and edit summary: replace section with most recent section from June 2010, before the slow revert war began.)

The edit summaries echo Ratel's edit summaries in wording and style.

He posted [14] on the article talk page - asserting that he has prior knowledge of my edit history, and attacking me for my strong BLP positions. And, identical to Ratel, asserts that an admin should charge me with a "slow revert war."

This article was heavily edited by Ratel until he was banned as a sock master. The section at issue was entirely written and inserted by Ratel. The wording of the allegations about my "edit history" precisely echoes that of Ratel. WP:DUCK applies in spades. Collect (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Note: Ratel has now been linked to a veritable slew of socks - many of which atach themselves to only a small number of artcles. The "blue link" user page edit was used by each (OzOke [15] one line, TickleMeister [16], [17] RxWatch, Hill-Mitchelson [18] etc. all show exactly the same pattern. An exceedingly small number of new WP editors do this. Collect (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

As far as I can see, BozellHammer is Red X Unrelated to the accounts in the Ratel archive. TNXMan 14:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as no action required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

22 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


New user with 436 edits - and intersecting [19] 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 [20] 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 [21] 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 [22] 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
[edit]

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

I should add that this entry here is part of a content dispute. Collect deleted [23] and has continued to delete [24] [25] [26] [27] [28], 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]

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: [29] 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 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 [33]. 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 [34] ), have censored the material in question numerous times in the last 18 months [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42], 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 [43]. The aspartame articles have been taken to ANI many times because of the same issue, by other editors [44] [45] and many more entries. The tag team involved are: 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 [46] (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]

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 [47]). 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]

Convenience break
[edit]
  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. [48] shows him iterating personal attacks. [49] an implication that the people who dislike his edits cause "drive-by vandalism". [50] 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 syncopated.
  3. Point 6, about Gwen Gale, was not 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 that's 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 being "old enemies" stalking him or "partisans" pushing an agenda or 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 

I don't like the silent-return bit; IMHO (wot I said on ANI) J should identify former accounts clearly from his current account. But I can see no sign of the (b) his recent conduct shows a relapse into similar forms of disruptive behaviour which FP discusses below. Given that the connection is known (and not in dispute?) this isn't the right venue for this discussion, which isn't a sock issue. If J isn't being disruptive, and is only editing from one account, why should he be blocked? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Shipped in from section below which is for clerks, checkusers and admins)

  • Firstly, my original block was for socks and voting twice on a AfD on a snow-keep page. why would I bother to vote 2x on a snow keep? Reason: I was high on Oxy after a back op, using different browsers and accounts to dodge the f**king hounders and stalkers (bane of WP), and made an honest mistake. I told the blocking admin at the time but he wouldn't listen. Since unblocking, I've been involved in contentious articles like euthanasia, but if you study my edits, you'll find that they are all cited and none are disruptive. In fact, I recently made a large series of edits to Euthanasia to remove non-standard citations and some undue weight. The other editors watching that page, and there are a lot, let those edits stand. That alone says I am improving the project. As for BLP, I really urge, URGE, you to study the material that I was asking to include. When a topic is covered in at least four published (not self-published) books, numerous news and magazine articles, it deserves at least some mention in a bio. To exclude it completely is to damage wikipedia, and that's exactly what the excluding editor has done and continues to do. Think!  Jabbsworth  22:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the exact reason for indeffing me? Given that the arguments for blocking me are without foundation and based wholly on past content disputes? What have I done, exactly, in the last few days that is so bad (other than repeating my suspicion that some of the editors of the aspartame articles may have COIs, and for which I was permanently blocked from editing those articles) that further punishment is required?  Jabbsworth  15:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record (Confirmed Sockpuppets)
[edit]

Going through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ratel/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TickleMeister/Archive, and synthesising the following edits (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6) it seems to be established that the following nine accounts (sorted by date of creation) were all operated by the same person:

Have I understood correctly? Because, if so, I think these accounts should all be tagged as Ratel sockpuppets. I'd gladly do so, if no one objects. Lumping them all together seems like a good idea should this person return to edit (either clandestinely or after asking to be unblocked), seeing as they apparently haven't been entirely upfront about their past accounts. Gabbe (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
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]
  • The only explanation I can find is this and a few subsequent edits from David Fuchs, but no formal announcement (not even a note on the editor's talkpage). I would say we should reinstate an indef block if the following is true: (a) his original block was connected to additional disruptive behaviour, over and above the sockpuppeting, and (b) his recent conduct shows a relapse into similar forms of disruptive behaviour. Because in that case, he's blown his second chance. If the block was only because of socking, and he's remained clean on that count, we should respect the BASC decision, but treat any recent sanctionable behaviour independently of that, on its own merits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched the Arbcom email archive. Jabbsworth did communicate with Shell Kinney. At the time, he did not confirm he was Ratel, and a check on the Ratel archive shows that it was never 100% confirmed that Ticklemeister was indeed Ratel. We can now take that as read, following the statements above.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jabbsworth told Shell Kinney that his three socks were RxWatch, OzOke, and Hill-Mitchelson. He never mentioned either Ticklemeister or Ratel, and if you check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ratel/Archive, Ticklemeister and Ratel are listed as unrelated. He gave some tale that sounds very strange to me as to how he had multiple accounts because he was being harrassed and wanted to avoid people tracing his edits, and he claimed he was running different accounts to edit different parts of the project, and never to have votestacked or similar offences. Since Ratel was blocked for abusing multiple accounts to feign the appearance of consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination), this defence is plainly a Pork Pie.

As I also believe User:Medic58 is a sock of Jabbsworth, I intend to block both indefinitely. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little late, but I believe the idea that Medic58 is another sock computes; see edit summaries: [51], [52]. Even on the limited number of posts, I got a familiar feel, and could match some phasing, although not enough to be certain. I thought I had put forth an elegant argument that Ratel and Ticklemeister were one and the same: [53], even if I missed Domino joiner.Novangelis (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Solely to document: Here it was confirmed that TickleMeister was related to OzOke, the later a sockpuppet recognized by Jabbsworth. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30 January 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This edit shows a familiarity with Wikipedia policy and the history of talk page discussion to a degree that is unusal for a first edit from an account. This article has been hit by numerous socks of Ratel, e.g., User:TickleMeister. The language and abusive tone seem familiar. The fact that the edit was posted to the top of the page, without a section heading or signature seem odd considering the familiarity with procedures. TFD (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tnxman307, there are similarities of arguments:

The posting is also similar to Stealthcupcake's final posting, 8 August 2010.[58] That account was brought up at SPI but not blocked. Another editor Arydberg, who is unrelated to Ratel is topic banned from the article.

TFD (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

This claim which is made clearly in bad faith (and should be investigated as such) presents insufficient, presumptuous evidence. Assumptions that do not even qualify as circumstantial are consistent with the editing users biased approach towards alleging the neutrality of a clearly slanted article. This warrants further investigation as well. To accuse users who read what is taking place, of being a sockpuppet account and using an abusive tone (which is false and also suspicious behavior as the tone was a mirror image of the tone said editor took towards other users, if not more polite)is an abuse of both power and in direct opposition to the "assume good faith" ideal.

Good faith has been proven to have not been shown by this editor on this subject, who blatantly refuses to accept any evidence or interpretation of evidence that does not support their own. Yet again, this should be heavily investigated as the neutrality of this article is not simply disputed, but clearly non-existent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattisOne (talk • contribs) 08:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is completely illogical to use familiarity with "the history of talk page discussion" as evidence of sockpuppetry considering previous discussions are in fact, public. Such faulty logic should not be used and is being justified in bad faith.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MattisOne (talk • contribs)

Given the abuses made by Ratel, by using up to 9 sockpuppets, then this request should be considered seriously. The tone used in the above response is perhaps a non-heavy circumstancial proof, but at least for me it sounds similar to the tone of Ratel. At any rate, MattisOne, there is not a accusation on you, but a request of preemtive investigation which is fair given the past circumstances. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I cannot say if this is a match based on language, the demand for assuming good faith while lambasting other editors in the same post was a characteristic I saw in the posts from several accounts in the Ratel group.Novangelis (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find the general tenor matches this. New accounts coming out swinging are commonplace, but those quoting every policy except NPA (but including AGF) are rare.Novangelis (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After reading and comparing both comments, for me it looks also similar, including the warrior attitude and the propension to engage in blaming users, which seemed to be an unvoidable and irresistible resource for Ratel-TickleMeister-Jabbsworth-etc. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having reread the limited sample set of comments, I can conclude that this could be Ratel, but I don't think it is and I can't say it isn't. While some poor behavior patterns match, there is a limit to the patterns of poor behavior. While I have seen some characteristic behaviors such as the above mentioned which was my first impression of the TickleMeister account, and several others (which I won't name), I don't have enough to say they are one and the same. I expect a return despite a block and a topic ban ("Honey badger don't care!"), but I don't have enough evidence to say this is it, although the notion remains. At the moment, I think the alternate possibility that this could is a new account for a previous IP editor or SPA with forgotten log-in, is strong enough that I cannot say I am convinced that abusive sockpuppetry has occurred. I would not recommend proceeding without further evidence, but I would recommend some stern warnings about WP:Civility and talk page behavior.Novangelis (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these claims are ignorant and made in bad faith to distract from the discussion of the actual topic, that the editor was losing. The similarities are incredibly vague and the grammatical usage and vocabulary were on entirely separate levels. Any rationally thinking person would take issue with the article in dispute to begin with so a similar tone could be assumed by just about anyone reading it who was also an intelligent thinker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattisOne (talk • contribs) 00:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the claims against other users are because other users are refusing to acknowledge neutrality disputes that are legitimate, as legitimate, assuming their own objectivity in determining as such when they have already formed an opinion, which in itself leads to non-neutrality (how can a non-neutral arbitrator determine what sources are neutral!?) as neutrality even in clearly defined policy has been interpreted subjectively (which in itself is ok but, leaves room for issues as did arise) but, also unfairly and then rules upon based on said interpretation.

Also, I am not any previous IP editor, unless I made an edit on something years ago that I forgot about. Nonetheless, I had no prior contributions to this topic beforehand, so trying to link me to other users will ultimately prove fruitless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattisOne (talk • contribs) 01:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Perhaps I have not to notice that if there was a technical impossibility to do a checkuser, due Ratel is a too old account, remember that this trouble may be overcome by using his last sockpuppets (TickleMeister, Jabbsworth, Medic58, etc.) which are listed here -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm uninvolved with Aspartame controversy. I took a look at their first few edits and there might be some familiarity with Wikipedia policies. For example, the first edit[59] has some modest references to Wikipedia terminology ("editors" versus "users" and a quote from WP:NPOV). OTOH, I don't see any WikiLinks or threats to take this to ANI or a noticeboard that would indicate more familiarity with Wikipedia. On the third hand, I'm a bit disturbed that on the basis of one edit, this was immediately taken to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Ratel. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can come to any level of familiarity without actually being a previous poster so that entire argument is ridiculous to begin with on their part. Yes though, I may pursue action against this being opened up as a form of abuse towards people who disagree with their opinion of the neutrality of a page they edit and monitor for edits. This is unacceptable, unethical, and against policy here. I have just as much grounds then to state that they are all sockpuppets because they share the same misinterpretation of neutrality. MattisOne (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

TFD- can you provide some more concrete evidence of a connection? You say they are familiar with Wikipedia procedures, but then admit they did something (posting to the top of a talk page) that shows they are not familiar with procedures. Some more evidence that demonstrates a connection would be helpful. TNXMan 16:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DUH. I told you, I'm unrelated to any other account. This "pseudo-investigation" is a waste of time, as my name was added to this list out of spite, under the guise of vague similarities. MattisOne (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

23 January 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Previously Confirmed sockpuppets

This user is editing the same range of articles than those edited by the multiple sockpuppets of Ratel.

He has special interest on euthanasia articles and specifically those related to Australia like Dr. Nitschke and his company Exit International In history of Philip Nitschke you can see edits made by User:OzOke, User:TickleMeister all confirmed sockpuppets of User:Ratel and also edits made by the concerned User:Jabba_the_Hot. Plus you can see User:Jabba_the_Hot editing in the article of YourLastRight.com a little known australian pro-euthanasia organization precisely on a private issue this organization had with Philip Nitschke' pro-euthanasia organization Exit International.

and as used to do Ratel and his sockpuppets, also JabbaTheHot clearly take the side of this euthanasia supporter, so for example you can see on Nitschke talk page supporting Dr.Nitschke claims like those this doctor said to deffend himself against the suspension of his license, including Mr. Bradley not being his patient and the claim Mr. Bradley was a serial killer.

But he is also editing on very specific medical related articles, where also Ratel or his sockpuppets used to edit, like Intersticial cystitis where in the history list you can see editing User:Medic58, and user:unit 5 confirmed sockpuppets of User:Ratel and you can also see editing the concerned user:Jabba_the_Hot

Or also the very specific chronical bacterial prostatitis, where in the history list you can see editing User:Ratel as well as its confirmed sockpuppets User:TickleMeister, User:RxWatch and also the concerned User:Jabba_the_Hot

Also User:Jabba_the_Hot is editing on Silver and also on Pentobarbital where user:Ratel and his sockpuppets used to edit.

By the way, remind confirmed sockpuppet Jabbsworth very concerned on explain how to use the suicide bag and add information on it that was even pointed as promotional[60] and compare with suspected JabbaTheHot publishing the dosage to use pentobarbital for euthanasia, based on book of Nitschke[61] --ClaudioSantos¿? 19:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His behaviour when interacting with me is pretty similar: He tries to disqualify my comments or editions by pointing on my alleged poor grammar and suggesting I have to avoid editing english wikipedia, and claming my comments are barely comprehensible: See this comment made by User:Jabbsworth, and then compare with this one made by User:Jabba the Hot and I can look for some similar comments made by Ratel and OzOke if needed.

Compare for example the tag or lable of this edit made by confirmed sockpuppet User:Jabbsworth with this one made by the also confirmed sockpuppet User:Ratel with this one and this one and this one recently made by User:Jabba_the_Hot.
And it is not less interesting to see two confirmed sockpuppets of Ratel, running to User:Bilby like here and here to fill complaints against me, exactly as recently did the suspected sockpuppet JabbaTheHot here.

I strongly find this pretty coincidential and provided the serious issues in the past with Ratel and all his sockpuppets, I think it deserved to be brought here.

If a checkuser is needed given the highly disruptive situations caused by this sockpupeteer Ratel, then remind there once arised that Ratels account is too old (stale) so it should be used user:Jabbsworth, user:OzOke, user:TickleMeister, or any other more recent account to do the checkuser and compare.

Remind all previous sockpuppets of Ratel (there were nine) are listed here.

ClaudioSantos¿? 05:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Some time ago I already got an eerie feeling about Jabba de Hot, but could not get my fingers behind it. At that time I had asked user:Bilby to take a look but I did not hear back. The Banner talk 03:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jabba is someone for sure - he appears from the start to be a returning editor interested heavily in euthanasia (24 Sep 2012) and his edits on Philip Nitschke seem very much in accord with Ratel's edits (including nature of edit summaries and general view of the person). Collect (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to point JabbaTheHot started to efit behaving as a veteran editor and it could not be a minor coincidence the similarity between the user name Jabbsworth (Ratel's sockpuppet) and JabbaTheHot, it even sounds and looks like an anagram. --ClaudioSantos¿? 17:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppetry? Am I overthinking and stressing paranoia when finding really odd that User:Artman772000 whose last contribution was one year ago (Feb, 2014) and whose unique areas of interest edited in lapses of years are anti-peak-oil and artificial intelligence, but now he/she comes and edit the euthanasia related article on Philip Nitschke, preciselly endorsing the inclusion of those pro-euthanasia terms like rational suicide that also the suspected sockpuppet JabbaTheHot is few hours ago also trying to insert here? Am I blurry remembering that sockpupeteer User: Ratel self-recognized and was clearly identified as an admin on SourceWatch, and you can see him here blaming a drama against wikipedia after the last investigation and expulsion due his in-bad-faith-sockpuppetry?. Is it just a matter of mere coincidence that there is a SourceWatch user called ArtificialIntelligence who is one of the main editors of the article on anti-peak-oil there on SourceWatch or is it a case of meatpuppetry? Should I ask for an apologize for calling those nicknames and sites here? --ClaudioSantos¿? 17:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or should I endorse even more my itchy feelings, since master sockpupeteer Ratel has also made editions related to peak-oil stuff here, here and here? --ClaudioSantos¿? 19:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
More