Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gass gess/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

I have been contributing in Wikipedia for years as an anonymous IP. Following the User:AlexNewArtBot/PhilippinesSearchResult for years and saw many good contribution from my fellow Filipinos Wikipedians. But what making me surprised after reading the Moro conflict article is the huge numbers of bare links in the article talkpage along with the bias words in the article that being maintained by Rajmaan (although have been reverted by several users before to maintain the neutrality). When I read the article history, I saw Rajmaan who are the most responsible to those large bare links especially to this article Foreign fighters in the Syrian and Iraqi Civil Wars, where garbage links to Twitter are also been used as a reference such as this.

His edit pattern just making me remember Gass gess who making a lot of bias statement on prostitution articles and seems have a bias interest on certain articles related to East Asian especially to China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam for example like this about the Prostitution in Japan. Lots of user have complaint been tired reverting most of Gass gess disruptive as been found on Muffin Wizard user talk discussion.

Prior to this, I am asking every related users who ever encounter both users to help on this investigation if you have any evidence to share here: ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and

Thank you. I hold no grudge to users involved but Wikipedia content must be neutral and stick to the point. Because its sick to see Wikipedia content continuously been destroyed like that. Rumilo Santiago (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you guys for giving your statements here. Just knowing that Rajmaan was investigated before after reading this sockpuppet investigation and he seems to admit owning many accounts, although Gass gess are seems not include in the list. But based on Rajmaan behavior with many of his contributions that are pro to Moro people, Moro conflict , , especially to the Tausūg people , , he could have a conflict of interest and he may probably coming from Mindanao, Philippines  and associated to the Moro National Liberation Front as there is huge evidences for this claims , one of that such as this  with statements that are really anti to the Filipino government , Vietnamese government , ,  while being pro to Chinese government . Rajmaan is a good editor as he is very hardworking guy but the only problem is his contributions is lacks of neutrality and very poor in the understanding of manual of style where he keep to introduce bare links to article. Lots of his contributions on prostitution articles are very identical to Gass gess which leads me to assuming that it was the same person, but given by Bbb23 result that it is a stale, this investigation may be quite difficult than we really think. From now on, I think I will keep an eye to his contributions, and see what happens next. Rumilo Santiago (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

No evidence to share yet I will try to look into this though when I have time thank you Sassmouth (talk) 09:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I had never heard of before this SPI, and my offhand knowledge of  is limited to his tendency to spam links on talk pages. So, having established my complete lack of authority on this topic, here is my opinion: Gass gess and Rajmaan are similar. The user comparison report indicates that they have both edited a number of the same articles. If I had to guess, they both share an interest in human rights issue in Asia. Their edits overlap, which indicates that one is not a sockpuppet being used for block evasion. Looking at the comparison report, one would guess that Gass gess would've been a sockpuppet to evade a block between 24 and 26 July 2015 (the period during which he edited those common pages), but Rajmaan has never been blocked. Rajmaan also existed before Gass gess, so Rajmaan was not created to evade a block either (not that Gass gess has ever been blocked; he simply became indefinitely inactive after being threatened with one). There are of course other reasons to create a sockpuppets, but this is probably the most common one.  I think that Rajmaan's tendency to spam links needs to be addressed, as does his opinion that sources like Facebook and Twitter qualify as reliable. I haven't noticed a bias in Rajmaan's editing tendencies (not that I've payed any attention), but I won't claim that it's not there, and if it is, it should be addressed. But I don't think the two users are related, and given that SPI is for sockpuppetry only, these issues should be handled elsewhere. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with the comments by User Compassionate727. I have remonstrated with Rajmaan often, and sometimes forcefully, as you can see on Rajmaan's TalkPage, but I have little or no doubt about his or her sincerity and honesty. I don't see a pattern of sockpuppetry or unacceptable bias In fact, Rajmaan's point of view frequently brings a needed corrective to articles on Asian history. The bare link and insertion of block text issues can and should be addressed separately, especially since Rajmaan has brought them more under control in recent months.ch (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I warned in reguards to Xinjiang conflict regarding building walls of text using unreliable sources, and adding unrelated info wp:coatrack  basically making the article unreadable.

" If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Indiscriminate dumping of text please stop, Please use proper references when adding data if you have a pov or coi or whatever your probably harming your cause because all your doing is rendering articles unreadable thank you Sassmouth (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I stopped the text dumping and bare references weeks ago. All my edits now have full references.Rajmaan (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for replying to me. Rajmaan my advice is to try to say more by saying less !/ no walls of text in the articles please. no one is going read them thanks again Sassmouth (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)"

I have no opinion as to what the wikipedia should do as i am still an inexperienced wikipedian he also said that he stopped the bad behaviour. BTW. if anybody wants to help me clean up the article Xinjiang conflict please help!!! i have no idea where to start and where to finish Xinjiang conflict is a mess Sassmouth (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've declined the CU request. The master is .--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see sockpuppetry here. The only thing I see similar about the two users' edits is that they add large chunks of information in single edits, but that's common to a lot of users (myself included, at times) however there doesn't seem to be anything else in common between them. Gass gess' edits always appear at a glance to be well-referenced, while Rajmaan has some work to do in that area, but they are working on it as the above conversation shows. Closed with no action, nothing to do here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)