I try to be very conservative with negative feedback
and trust exclusions. I think this is part of what got my my "Switzerland" nickname.
I know...
Timelord's feedback had been off for years.
Isn't this also the case of Ratimov? I precisely presented recent examples, but also ones from years ago, in order to provide evidence that he does it continuously, just like TL.
In this case, I still hope both of you will see you're doing it wrong. That includes your latest negative feedback: I think that one should also be neutral.
Due to my high respect to you,
I will think about that. But it's hard to convince myself, at least at the moment, that theft -- intellectual theft, in this case -- does not fall under the cases when negative feedback can be used. As you probably noticed, I always emphasized about correct use of Trust system and the fact that positive and negative feedbacks should be used for successful deals or, respectively, for prejudices determined by bad deals. So I
know the guidelines of the system. And, in this case, I tend to believe that Ratimov did intellectual theft in a continuous form, did it knowing precisely what he's doing and did it only for luring forum users of what a good contributor he is while, in fact, he only stole work of others and presented it as being his. Indeed, he did not sneak his hand in someone's pocket for stealing money; instead, he sneaked in someone's workshop and stole that person's work. At least this is how I see it...
However, the main question from this topic is if Ratimov's behavior is constant abuse of Trust or not -- therefore should he be part of DT or not?because of the spineless nature of DT1 there is basically no recourse.
Suggestion: ask theymos to undo your own DT1-exclusion and make your Trust list mean something for voting again

I also vouch strongly for that. (Maybe since there are two of us suchmoon will let herself be convinced?

)
it is now clear that he also broke rule 27.
Great. Report it. Let the Mods decide. Move on.
Sadly, it would be no point in reporting those posts, because they are older than 6 months and reports will get (almost) automatically marked as Bad. there are 99% chances for this to happen. Otherwise I would report them.