Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/RatatoskJones/Archive: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations | RatatoskJones Browse history interactivelyNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:55, 28 April 2015 editMike V (talk | contribs)28,285 edits Archiving case from Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/RatatoskJones  Revision as of 04:19, 28 April 2015 edit undoРаціональне анархіст (talk | contribs)2,829 edits replies; added a new suspected sock IP to the listNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
__TOC__ __TOC__
{{SPIarchive notice|1=RatatoskJones}} {{SPIarchive notice|RatatoskJones}}
{{SPIpriorcases}} {{SPIpriorcases}}
=====<big>19 April 2015</big>===== =====<big>19 April 2015</big>=====
{{SPI case status|decline}}



;Suspected sockpuppets ;Suspected sockpuppets
Line 10: Line 10:
* {{checkuser|1=Indopug}} * {{checkuser|1=Indopug}}
* {{checkuser|1=Reddogsix}} * {{checkuser|1=Reddogsix}}
* {{checkip|1=117.222.46.14}}
<!-- You may duplicate the templates above ({{checkuser}} and {{checkIP}}) to list more accounts--> <!-- You may duplicate the templates above ({{checkuser}} and {{checkIP}}) to list more accounts-->
* <small>''Auto-generated every hour.''</small> * <small>''Auto-generated every hour.''</small>
* *


A possible meat-puppet army at work in various Islam-related topics including ] (), ] (), ] () and ] () 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. A possible meat-puppet army at work in various Islam-related topics including ] (), ] (), ] () and ] () with similar histories of tag-team edit-warring to blank sections. <s>With the exception of RatatoskJones, these are all</s> Several of these are young accounts whose first edits date from December 2014 or more recently.


Note: In the course of an ongoing ANI, FreeatlastChitchat has to clear his name and said he would endorse Checkuser. ] 01:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Note: In the course of an ongoing ANI, FreeatlastChitchat has to clear his name and said he would endorse Checkuser. ] 01:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Line 41: Line 42:


*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 ] several times and have never seen anything but good-faith edits from him. I've also come across ] 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. -] (]) 02:59, 28 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 ] several times and have never seen anything but good-faith edits from him. I've also come across ] 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. -] (]) 02:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
::See reply to Bbb23 below.] 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>======
*{{clerknote}} {{ping|Раціональне анархіст}} Please, provide some evidence. Provide some ]s of edits by all those accounts to illustrate their similarities. '''] ]''' 15:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC) *{{clerknote}} {{ping|Раціональне анархіст}} Please, provide some evidence. Provide some ]s of edits by all those accounts to illustrate their similarities. '''] ]''' 15:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Line 48: Line 49:
:*{{declined}} {{reply|Vanjagenije}} 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.--] (]) 01:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC) :*{{declined}} {{reply|Vanjagenije}} 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.--] (]) 01:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
*No action taken. Closing. ] (]) 03:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC) *No action taken. Closing. ] (]) 03:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Bbb23}}You are correct concerning those two; I'd added them in after already forming the rationale, which had been mainly focused on the more voluminous editors with existing ANI attention, particularly FreeatlastChitchat. As I added names I forgot to reword the rationale (I've stricken the offending sentence).
:::Given that myself, FreeatlastChitchat and {{reply to|Vanjagenije}} are either requesting or endorsing CU, I hope you'll change your mind and go ahead. Please note that I have also added a brand new IP to the list above, whose only edits so far are section-blank reversion: 117.222.46.14.] 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->

Revision as of 04:19, 28 April 2015


RatatoskJones

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

19 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

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 Several of these are 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 Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Mirza_Ghulam_Ahmad.23edits_by_xtremedood.--Peaceworld 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 Misplaced Pages 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. reddogsix (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 reddogsix several times and have never seen anything but good-faith edits from him. I've also come across Pax 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)
See reply to Bbb23 below. Pax 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
@Vanjagenije: Done. Pax 06:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • no Declined @Vanjagenije: 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)
@Bbb23:You are correct concerning those two; I'd added them in after already forming the rationale, which had been mainly focused on the more voluminous editors with existing ANI attention, particularly FreeatlastChitchat. As I added names I forgot to reword the rationale (I've stricken the offending sentence).
Given that myself, FreeatlastChitchat and @Vanjagenije: are either requesting or endorsing CU, I hope you'll change your mind and go ahead. Please note that I have also added a brand new IP to the list above, whose only edits so far are section-blank reversion: 117.222.46.14. Pax 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)