Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RatatoskJones/Archive

19 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

A possible meat-puppet army at work in various Islam-related topics including Rape jihad (history), Third Battle of Panipat (history), Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (history) and Mughal–Maratha Wars (history) with similar histories of tag-team edit-warring to blank sections. With the exception of RatatoskJones, these are all young accounts whose first edits date from December 2014 or more recently.

Note: In the course of an ongoing ANI, FreeatlastChitchat has requested starting an SPI to clear his name and said he would endorse Checkuser.  Pax 01:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Similar edits (all section-blankings in the Rape jihad article):
 * RatatoskJones:,,
 * FreeatlastChitchat:,,,,,,,,,,, ,,
 * Xtremedood:
 * Indopug:
 * Reddogsix: ,

Several of the editors above are currently listed together in this ANI (submitted by Softlavender), and another independently here (submitted by myself).

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

I'd comment on the evidence provided against me, but I see User:Раціональне анархіст didn't bother providing any. Three of the four articles mentioned, I haven't even touched (nor have I any desire to do so). My sole connection with User:FreeatlastChitchat is that we both apparently agree that the Rape jihad article is a travesty (and with the exception of User:Раціональне анархіст, so does pretty much anyone who looks at it). Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You both have similar recent histories of article section-blanking without establishing consensus within the group. Regarding that particular article, it's nearly 100% of both of your activities (this rationale now included above, but was easily seen previously just by clicking the history links provided above, since activity consists of revert wars in otherwise low-editing-traffic articles). Pax 05:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As PAX is a SPA(His sole contribution to the encyclopedia is commenting on AFD debates and putting contentious material in rape jihad, there are almost no other contributions that he has made) whose sole purpose is to post inflammatory comments, I have decided not to engage him in any debate whatsoever. Yes I did say that I would endorse an SPI, and I hereby give my endorsement to any SPI that is launched against me. A simple Checkuser will prove that the above mentioned accounts are poles apart, literally. As for the claims of meat puppetry, I consider them to be just a trolling attempt as Xtreme and I have an ongoing DRN. People who are puppets do not go for DRN's as far as I know. So basically, I endorse my checkuser and laugh at any claims of meat puppetry. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good deal; let's get this sorted out then. Pax 20:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely that User:FreeatlastChitchat andUser:Xtremedood are the same as they have been disputing with each other over here Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. --Peace world  09:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that maybe my one edit on the article (based on sound reasoning) caused quite a bit of dismay to Pax. The fact of the matter is that the Rotterham case was NOT justified by the suspects on religious grounds. It would be a similar situation to blame Christianity for the rapes committed by Irish, German, English, Spanish, etc. men. The Rotterham case should not be included in the article. I am also not a sockpuppet. Xtremedood (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That reminds me of another common similarity between the suspected socks: all Wikipedia forums are impromptu AfD discussions concerning whatever article they have in their crosshairs at the moment. Pax 21:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I find the accusation of sockpuppetry rather silly. I have been pulled into this because I removed a section that did not meet the definition that was originally contained in the article. Rotterham, just like Xtremedood - great minds think alike. Раціональне анархіст countered by adding it back in and removing the definition. Since the article had been removed in a prior discussion, I followed up by adding a CSD G4 to the article. How this gets me to be a puppet is beyond me. Раціональне анархіст provide some proof or at least show us that this was a founded accusation - a single common edit or disagreeable (to you) edit does not make a puppet. It appears your zealous in trying to "protect" and "justify" the article Rape jihad may have gotten the best of you. I cannot comment on the other articles, simply because I have not contributed to them. red dogsix (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Was reviewing some SPI's when I came across this and was a little surprised, doesn't look like this SPI is really going anywhere, but for what it's worth I have come across red dogsix several times and have never seen anything but good-faith edits from him. I've also come across <b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> and while I hadn't noticed anything out of place with their edits, I certainly will be scrutinizing their edits a lot more closely in the future simply based off of this erroneous SPI. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Please, provide some evidence. Provide some WP:diffs of edits by all those accounts to illustrate their similarities.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 06:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * - - Per diffs added by .  Vanjagenije   (talk)  15:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * These are contentious issues and bound to generate a lot of disagreement and factionalization, meaning some editors agreeing with each other. Just because they do doesn't make them socks. Moreover, this comment at the top ("With the exception of RatatoskJones, these are all young accounts whose first edits date from December 2014 or more recently.") is blatantly inaccurate. Reddogsix and Indopug are long-standing, trusted editors with over 20,000 edits each and zero blocks to their names. I'm not running a CU against them with this kind of evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No action taken. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

07 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

both users troll Jewish, feminist, muslim and "racial" topics with the same verbiage and POV-pushing. They both also appear on several topics I have been editing which is far more than a coincidence. Trinacrialucente (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Trinacrialucente (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Here is a "diff" from Roscelese  and another


 * 1) And here is a "diff" from RatatoskJones made just days prior  and another

-Council on American Islamic Relations -Racial Segregation?

I would like to note I am not the only one who has noticed the "sockpuppet" tendencies here as this has been an ongoing issue  and the above user who claims to be "Uninvolved" in this matter is in fact one of the suspected sockpuppets of this same user in the above report (not initiated by me). Of course the above user would "not find a problem", since that user is vested in obfuscating the facts.Trinacrialucente (talk) 10:44 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Uninvolved I fail to see much problem. To be frank the changes made by Roscelese were endorsed by other editors n many pages, perhaps this is just a ploy(forgive me for using a non PC word, I cannot think of any other atm) on part of Trinacrialucente to intimidate another editor. Highly laughable is the fact that no diffs have been provided, assuming bad faith much? Also the cherry on the top is "They both also appear on several topics I have been editing which is far more than a coincidence". Yeah sure dude, when two guys appear on the topic you edit, they MUST be socks, for what else can they be? Sarcasm aside, I would propose that this is rejected due to lack of evidence and the nom is reminded that this kind of tactics should not be used to intimidate editors. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No "diffs" were provided as I was not able to edit the template until an admin opened it. I will provide them now that this is "opened". You should refrain from commenting on subjects/topics of which you are unaware.Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't need to edit any templates. You need to provide evidence (preferably diffs) as soon as you file a report. Next time you make a SPI report, be sure to povide diffs at the same time or as soon as possible. I also moved your comment to the above section, as the section below is only for clerks, checkusers and administrators.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  11:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Diffs you provided are very weak evidence. They show two users making same reverts, which can be seen frequently and does not prove sockpuppetry. Editors often revert each others, and it is perfectly normal that two different editors make same reverts during a content dispute. Unless you provide some stronger evidence, this case is going to be closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  01:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No response after waiting for 10 days. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)