English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Sockpuppet investigations/Ralphellis/Archive

Add links
From English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick


Ralphellis

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

23 September 2017

NOTE: originally filed under Tatelyle

Suspected sockpuppets


Summary

Tatelyle and Ralfellis both claim to be the author of a 2016 paleoclimatology paper. Both are involved, on the same side, in a long-running dispute at Talk: The Exodus. Tatelyle's account, explicitly and implicitly, has a long-running pattern of primarily existing to support the works of WP:FRINGE author Ralph Ellis, including but not limited to the climateology paper in question. I'll begin with the paleoclimatology paper. I will follow this with places where Tatelyle has added explicit references to Ralph Ellis to Wikipedia pages. I will end with a long list of places where Tatelyle adds material similar to the books of Ralph Ellis to Wikipedia pages, but without mentioning Ellis by name.

The climateology paper

Here is Tatelyle's self-description from User:Tatelyle: "Tatelyle is a British polymath researcher and writer with interests in science, history, aviation and climatology. His science paper on paleoclimatology was published in 2016." Diff: [1].

Here is User:Ralfellis identifying as the author of the 2016 paleoclimatology paper by Ralph Ellis: [2]. Here's Ralph Ellis identifying himself as "a polymath and independent researcher, interested in science, technology and history." [3]

Explicit References to Ralph Ellis by Tatelyle

The following diffs show Tatelyle adding references to the self-published works of Ralph Ellis to various Wikipedia pages: 100,000-year problem, Carolina bay, Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, Talk: Christ myth theory, Christ myth theory.

Implicit References to the works of Ralph Ellis

The following references show a behavioral pattern by Tatelyle of inserting material similar to material already in books by Ralph Ellis, without citing Ellis directly. These edits are primarily concerned with connecting the Pharaohs to Jesus to the Jewish War of AD 70 to King Arthur, in a variety of ways. The links are in pairs: each pair starts with a diff by Tatelyle and is followed by a link to the works of Ralph Ellis showing coverage of the same specific information: Antonine Wall -- [4] and [5]. Talk:Paul the Apostle -- [6] and [7]. Ferris Wheel - [8] and [9], connecting Ferris Wheels to the legend of king Arthur. Naassenes -- [10] and [11]. Sarras, to connect king Arthur with Jerusalem: [12] and [13]. Tatelyle claims that Ramesses was "ginger haired" at Ancient Egyptian Race controversy [14] and Black Egyptian hypothesis [15]. Similar material by Ralph Ellis: [16]. Deva Victrix -- [17] and [18].

Tatelyle asserts that algebra comes not really from al-Khwarizmi but from an Indian philosopher, Brahmagupta: [19]. Ralph Ellis claims the same: [20] (page 10).

Conclusion

That's a lot of similarity: same claims about paleoclimatology research, same esoteric interests in Ancient Near Eastern history, promotion of a variety of obscure claims from Ralph Ellis on Wikipedia. Alephb (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller. Beans? Alephb (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Alephb, beans means don't spell out the tells because that might assist future socks in avoiding them, as per WP:BEANS. Bishonen | talk 15:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC).
Bishonen, for what it's worth, the books are identified under the names "Ralph Ellis" as well as "Ralf Ellis," as google books searches for the two will show. This parallels the two user names. It's probably irrelevant, but it's one of the many very unusual features of this odd situation. Alephb (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Update -- the sockmaster, below, has identified himself with the username User:Narwhal2, which is currently blocked for sockpuppetry. That sock in turn is connected with a group of five sockpuppets as can be found here: [21]. We are dealing with a long-term sockmaster, and I'm not sure why he's being allowed to edit under any name. Alephb (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

  • Like Tatylyle, Ellis is also interested in aviation.[22] This is pretty much a slam dunk and the illegitimate use of a sock for self-promotion. On that basis I suggest blocking the Tatelyle account indefinitely so that it if Ellis wishes to edit it's obvious who he is. Doug Weller talk 07:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have been an editor on the Exodus article. I was puzzled as to why Tatelyle seemed so focused on having the name of Josephus included - not Josephus's ideas, but Josephus himself. Ralph Ellis is an extremely prolific self-published author, and it's clear from his web-page (link) that Josephus occupies an important position in the intricate and highly idiosyncratic version of history he promotes. To my mind Tatelyle appears clearly to be Ellis, and is clearly using Wikipedia to advance a personal agenda (not, however, to sell his books, which he rarely mentions). PiCo (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Tatelyle now claims Ellis is his brother and that I've banned him twice. I've never banned Ellis and unless there are undisclosed accounts have never blocked him. I've also got some beans that show that Tatelyle is Ellis. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Alephb, see Ebenezer Cobham Brewer (2001). Wordsworth Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Wordsworth Editions. p. 107. ISBN 978-1-84022-310-1. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Bishonen, point of Wikilaw. If Ralfellis continues to use that new account, would he immediately be subject to blocking or banning as a sock of the old 2006 account? Or is there some sort of statute of limitations?
And would Tatelyle be eligible to start a new anonymous account under WP:FRESHSTART, or would any such attempt be viewed as abusive sock-puppeting?
I am not sure whether Tatelyle actually is Ellis, or not. As has been mentioned in the thread at The Exodus talk, I've been in contact with him off-wiki. Ralph has neither confirmed nor denied being Tatelyle, and it is possible that Tatelyle is one of Ellis's 2500 Facebook friends, fans and followers. But like the other users, I suspect that Tatelyle and Ellis are one and the same. Could you offer any advice as to how Tatelyle and/or Ellis can continue to participate in the discussion at The Exodus without being subject to immediate blockage? Thank you. JerryRussell (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@JerryRussell:, Tatelyle claimed to be Ellis's brother, a standard excuse for socks and sockmasters. Ellis can continue to participate on the talk page but clearly has a conflict of interest about his works. And we've been lied to it seems. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Bishonen: thanks for the clarifications, I'm also learning from this. —PaleoNeonate – 19:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
This is Ralph Ellis, and I have just been notified of this action. I would like to complain about the censorship by Dougweller, who has deleted my Wiki profile on two occasions, and is now deleting my brother too. Dougweller appeared to follow me around Wiki many years ago, and delete any update I made - all of which were very reasonable. So I have had to rely on freinds and supporters to make any revisions on my behalf.
The issue here is typical of the censorship of myself here on Wiki. I asked for an update to be made on the The Exodus page, because after ten years it still did not mention that Josephus Flavius, Judaism's greatest historian, said the Israelites were the Hyksos. What I asked for, was a two-word quotation from Judaism's greatest historian, which is not unreasonable. But this was deleted again and again, for a multitude of spurious reasons. My supporters have then engaged in some 100 pages of debate on the 'talk' page, where it was agreed that quotes from Josephus should be allowed on Wiki. There are many quotes from Josephus on Wiki, as are there are many quotes on Wiki from Gildas and Bede - two similar ancient chroniclers. And yet still the two-word quote from Josephus gets deleted and censored. Why??
And now, because the The Exodus editors still want to delete the two-word quote from Josephus, they have started attacking the contributors rather than looking at the content. And yet again Dougweller has got himself involved in this censorship action. Wiki should not be operating a censorship program, where it excludes quotes from Judaism's greatest historian, and bans any editor who wishes to post those quotes into a Wiki page.
Perhaps the editors who brought this action, should explain why they are so determined to delete a two-word quote, that they would indulge in two months and 100 pages of debate, to do so. Ralfellis (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Tatelyle has accused me of repeatedly deleting quotes from Josephus. As far as my knowledge goes, I have never deleted quotes from Josephus (except for the words "our people", about which nothing indicated that those would be a quote, e.g. lacking quotation marks). So, you have chosen meatpuppets which particularly fail WP:COMPETENCE. And, we do censor WP:FRINGE views, this is by design, nothing to be ashamed of in a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. Do also read WP:MEAT about using meatpuppets and WP:COI and WP:ACTIVIST about advancing your cause against WP:PAGs. We're WP:NOTANARCHY and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this is the place to pursue this content debate, but censoring any mention of Josephus was never the intention, it's more a question of placing such in their proper context and representing those views in due weight (and avoiding irrelevant ones), indeed: where it was agreed that quotes from Josephus should be allowed. I also note the same claim as that used by Tatelyle: censoring Judaism's greatest historian. —PaleoNeonate – 02:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ralfellis: As Tatelyle you accused me of banning you twice, although I've never banned you or even blocked you, now you are talking about me deleting some "wiki profile" - whatever that is. Can you justify either claim? If you can't, please drop the accusations. As for the claim Tatelyle is your brother, I have publicly available evidence I will provide any SPI admin asking for it. Fringe editors and those who wish to add their own research to articles often cry censorship when their edits are reverted because they don't use reliable sources or wish to add original research, either because they haven't bothered to learn our policies or because they dislike them. You've been adding original researchto articles and I've been removing per policy. That's not personal, it's just something good editors do. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This is Ralph Ellis again. I thought I would reproduce some of the bias that DougWeller is showing, when trying to oppose me and ban me from Wiki.
... Dougweller said I am an unreliable source, because I am self published. But only my tablet books are self published.
... Dougweller then said I am an unreliable source, because my publisher is not respectable enough.
... Dougweller said I am an unreliable source, because I am not published abroad, but I am published in Italy, Brazil, Korea and China (in Korean and Mandarin).
... But Dougweller said the Chinese publisher was not reputable (he had never heard of them before - Beijing Zito Books) Their website is in Manderin, so I doubt he knows what they are publishing).
... It was said I have no media comment, but I am published in the Daily Mail twice.
... Dougweller said the Daily Mail did not qualify as a newspaper, despite it being the largest circulation paper in the UK.
... Dougweller said I had never done anything notable, like write a peer review paper. But I have written a peer review science paper, it is called 'Modulation of Ice Ages by Dust and Albedo', reviewed by the Beijing University and published by Elsevier.
... Dougweller said "I'm surprised he got published there - I thought it might be because of his co-author.". Which shows his inate bias against myself. Please bear in mind that Dougweller knows nothing about me, and yet he already 'knows' I am not capable of writing a science paper.
... Dougweller then said that a Chinese science paper was not acceptable, and someone else said that the Chinese were a stupid people who could not do any science. A surprising comment on an encyclopaedia forum.
... Dougweller then said that I was a climate denier - a perjorative term designed to denigrate anyone with alternate ideas and suggestions on paleoclimatology, and to close down freedom of thought. This is similar to Dougweller's opposition to my historical works, which also explore alternate possibilities. In effect, Dougeweller is playing the role of the Church, in opposing Copernicus, Galileo and many other free thinkers, because they went against a self-determined concensus.
... But note what Dougweller has NOT said. Not once has Dougweller outlined and explained anything that I have written as being wrong - neither in my historical nor in my paleoclimatology work. The content of my Ice Age paper is not discussed, but it is 'wrong' because it was published in China. The content of my historical books is not discussed, but it is 'wrong' because it was published in China. This sounds more like cultural prejudice, than a considered opinion.
It does appear that Dougweller is engaging in ad hominem attacks based upon some kind of prejudice, rather than acting as a fair referee. And in the Talk pages, this has overflowed into an attack by others upon Josephus Flavius, Judaism's greatest historian, presumably because I mention his views. And this is despite the fact that Josephus has been quoted thousands of times elsewhere within Wiki. In my view, the prejudice shown against Josephus and against myself on the The Exodus 'talk' page is wholly unjustified, and I should be allowed to edit Wiki pages, as I used to do many years ago. Ralfellis (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Dougweller says he has never banned or blocked me, but on the Talk page he said: "I'd be amazed if Ellis had any peer reviewed publications. .... And I think he's the fringe author who really, really dislikes me. I don't consider him a reliable source and have argued that before and removed him." . What part of 'removed him' does not imply banning or blocking?? And when I tried to enter Wiki, many years ago, it came up with a big message saying 'you are blocked'. It looks as if Dougweller is not a reliable source........!! Ralfellis (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This would be easily resolved if you would just tell us what username DougWeller blocked. Then we could easily look it up. If you're not willing to do that, please don't make accusations without evidence. Alephb (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Recommended readings: WP:ARBPS, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI, Talk:Global warming/FAQ. I'm not replying for Doug who is welcome to answer, but I am not surprised if the content, papers, publications, sources, publishers, etc, are questioned more than the editor and that getting into original research about details (with endless debates on talk pages which are WP:NOTFORUM) is avoided, which is good practice. Wikipedia does have a bias for the mainstream view on topics. —PaleoNeonate – 10:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Alephb.... I think there was Ralphellis, and Narwhal or Narwhal2. Ralfellis (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

A banned editor is one who is forbidden either to edit a particular area of Wikipedia or to edit at all. A blocked editor is blocked by the Wikipedia software from editing at all under that account. As we know know that you have been flagrantly violating our policy on sockpuppetry for at least 10 years to promote your own ideas, I suspect you may now be blocked and it might be worth considering a community ban. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ralfellis: I've just realised that there is one simple thing that you haven't done that might lend some credence to your claim that Tatelyle is your brother - give us details about the article he wrote on paleoclimatology last year. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • This SPI should might be at Ralphellis rather than Tatelyle, since Ralphellis is the oldest account. (Ralfellis, which edited only on 17 Sept 2017, is the youngest.) I don't know how to arrange that, and never mind the red tape for now; I'm convinced by all the above, and will block Tatelyle indefinitely per Doug Weller's suggestion. Very strong report, Alephb, thank you for your work with it. The chances are the user has forgotten the password to Ralphellis, which was used only in 2006, and I'm leaving both the "ellis" accounts alone. Unless another admin wants to tidy up further or place more sanctions, I think this can be closed. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC).
  • @JerryRussell: I regard the old 2006 account, Ralphellis, as abandoned and defunct; no account should be blocked as a sock of that, eleven years later. I'd encourage the user to continue using the account Ralfellis. But he may alternatively make a fresh start, provided he complies with WP:COI and is open about his connection with the author Ralph Ellis. So there are two principles that he needs to follow: having one account, not several; and being open about his COI. That's it. As for whether some or all of the accounts are the author Ralph Ellis, or are actually his friends or relatives, nobody cares. They still have the same COI, and will be blocked as socks if more than one of them is used. Compare WP:MEAT. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC).
  • @Alephb and Doug Weller: I agree; it turns out I assumed too much good faith on the part of Ralph Ellis. Since he has now acknowledged Narwhal2 was his sock, and Narwhal2 is in turn linked to a whole sockfarm here (confirmed by checkuser Tiptoety), he has clearly been flagrantly socking for at least 10 years. I have blocked the remaining known accounts, Ralphellis and Ralfellis, indefinitely, and would not object to a site ban if one was proposed. Bishonen | talk 16:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC).
  • Ralfellis and Tatelyle are a perfect CU match. Doug, maybe they are brothers. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Clerk note: this seems to have been left in CU-request status inadvertently. Regarding the "brother" theory, I see no reason to accept the explanation of a user who's been deceptively operating multiple accounts for a decade. I've re-tagged all of the accounts as socks of Ralphellis and moved the case, based on the admission and the history. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

13 October 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Procedural filing to add information to the SPI archive. Accounts matched to Narwhal2 in this AN/I report are listed below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk note: the following accounts were  Confirmed to each other by CheckUser Tiptoety on 13 October 2010:

  • Ralfellis (talk · contribs) admitted in the previous investigation ([23]) that they also operated the account Narwhal2. Behavioural analysis between Narwhal2 and Tatelyle (talk · contribs) suggests that the admission is genuine. Therefore, all of these accounts are now tagged as sockpuppets of Ralphellis. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

08 August 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Who was busy pushing the POV that Josephus wrote accurate history? Tatelyle. I bet that if you ask Onlyloss673 if they are a religious believer, they will say they're agnostic. So, religious faith is not their motivation. Their motivation is seeking to boost some WP:FRINGE historical theories upon the historical Jesus (Postflaviana). But they are prepared to do it piecemeal, article by article, building a case for their own grand narrative. They have a lot of patience, so they will attack at seemingly unrelated articles, the common goal being accepting that Ancient scholars did write WP:RS (in the meaning of WP:HISTRS). There's no point lecturing them about our WP:RULES: they know the rules, they just aren't prepared to accept them as binding. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I am very familiar with Wikipedia my friend. at [24] gives away they are not a newbie. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

I'm not sure I should post here as a patrolling admin or not, so to be on the safe side... If you look at the edit he made after the indefinite block and I reverted, he exprssses a lot of hatred of Wikipedia. Ralph Ellis didn't do that so far as I can recall, and I was very involved with the SPI. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Retrieved from "https://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ralphellis/Archive&oldid=115341"