Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RJII

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

RJII (5th)





 * Code letter: B (see Requests_for_arbitration/RJII v. Firebug)

RJII was a shared account, and the editors behind it were blocked indefinitely for edit warring, vandalism and personal attacks last year. Since then, they have attempted to return to Wikipedia using a number of sockpuppets, including Improper Bostonian and All Male Action.

Mere days after registering, Billy Ego added a userbox to his profile which is entirely identical to a very old userbox that was deleted last year  (it has recently been re-created only as a redirect to itself). It is extremely unlikely that he could have reproduced this userbox with such accuracy if he was not a user in early 2006. Furthermore, his editing pattern is consistent with RJII's (numerous edits within the space of a few minutes), and the articles he edits are articles that RJII had edited when he was active (particularly economics of fascism). Billy Ego claims to be a fascist, but the viewpoint he promotes in his edits (that fascism is socialist) was the exact same viewpoint pushed by RJII. Finally, Billy Ego's sources are libertarian (despite his claimed political affiliation), which is consistent with the sources used by RJII.

Billy Ego's conduct in conversation on his talk page is also consistent with RJII's, including threats and personal attacks ("cut the bullshit"; "stop fucking with me" ) instead of constructive debate on article content.

I am including Improper Bostonian and All Male Action in this request for cross-referencing purposes. Both of them are known sockpuppets of RJII that have been recently given permanent blocks. RJII may have been editing from a different IP than Billy Ego; but if Billy Ego matches with Improper Bostonian or All Male Action, he is still a sockpuppet of a banned user. -- Nikodemos 06:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * . You'll need to do this via analysis of edits; checkuser won't be helpful here. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

RJII


Improper Bostonian is currently making essentially the same reversions to the introduction of as RJII, a permanently banned shared account through which a group of political activists made over 1,100 revisions to the capitalism article over the course of more than 19 months. 

In Requests_for_arbitration/RJII, which had begun before the revalation that the account was shared one, one of the issues was RJII's frequent revert wars to place a "footnote pointing out the definition of capitalism used by the anarchocapitalists" and promote the "Merriam-Webster definition of capitalism." RJII frequently reverted to the following:
 * Merriam-Webster defines capitalism as: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." This differs from some other definitions that make no mention of a "free market" but instead refer to the private ownership of the means of production."

Similarly, Improper Bostonian writes in a recent edit summary, ''restored proper intro sentence....corporate and private ownership are two different things. capitalism doesnt have to be individualized ownership. see merriam-webster definition. In a subsequent revision, Improper Bostonian is expanding footnote to explain.''  Between  04:44, 16 January and  05:34, 17 January 2007, Improper Bostonian made twelve revisions and four reversions of other users to restore the version of the intro preferred by RJII; see article history.

Making the same tendentious and idiosyncratic reversions on the same articles, combined with same citing of the "Merriam Webster definition" as if it were scripture, I have little doubt that the users who had been sharing the RJII account are still here. Unfortunately, given that RJII was a shared account perhaps using multiple IP addresses over time, we may only be able to link RJII to their new accounts with the circumstantial evidence. 172 | Talk 05:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

. Essjay   ( Talk )  07:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerks, please merge with RJII. Essjay  ( Talk )  07:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * moved and adjusted per checkuser request. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

RJII


It is suspected that and  are the same person. Furthermore that judging by the similarity of the edits made by these users to those of banned user RJII that they may be sockpuppets of him. Having said this the latter will likely be difficult to prove. This is the second (or third case), previous IPs etc. may be found here. - FrancisTyers · 17:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Update - TheIndividualist and IndividualistAnarchist are the same person (Haha I should have checked the contributions more thoroughly, "(cur) (last) 17:12, 31 July 2006 IndividualistAnarchist (Talk | contribs | block) (moving over to the other username)" . - FrancisTyers · 18:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

IndividualistAnarchist admits to being one of the editors behind the RJII group account. (What to do about it is a question for another forum.) Unless there is some other reason justifying a technical investigation, I will mark this as closed. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

RJII




Anyone who has been following the guy's activities for the past 2 years, especially the past few days, should realise the need in this. If not, see The sockpuppets must be found and banned. -- infinity  0  10:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Sarge Baldy/RJII
 * Final comment

Possible IPs (please CU these also)

RJII's "harassers" 


 * 64.12.116.135
 * 64.12.116.65
 * 205.188.117.14
 * 205.188.116.65

RJII's IPs
 * 66.32.109.4: contribs
 * 66.32.156.175: contribs  cf. RJII's contribs


 * Update: RJII was blocked indefinitely for being a shared account two days ago, by Admin Jeffery O. Gustafon. However all accounts by the RJII "team" will likely be undectable and un-check-user-verifiable, due to "home" computers, etc. We need some sort of "Wikipedia Abuse Policy Team" to look after any of these "advanced techniques of psychological warfare, including intimidation, and game theory" and hunt down any incidents of "manipulation of administrators and arbitrators". This may go deeper than we think... Sincerely, Logical2u (Wikibreak) 16:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, there's a discussion ongoing at WP:AN/Iover not only his block but also his "grandiose claims". I'm a bit harried to check his contributions, but if this checkuser turns up positive, seems like it might be a little bit closer to unraveling his comments. I enjoy Sidaway's comment as a good summary: Take this with a bushel of salt. Logical2u (Wikibreak) 16:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing direct comes up. Given the nature of the account, that doesn't surprise me. If given specific accounts to compare against I could be more helpful. Mackensen (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Second Request

As suggested on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0/Proposed decision. -- infinity  0  15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would just like to point out to edits like these: which were done at the same time. Also, I believe that RJII is US citizen and I'm from opposite part of the world. -- Vision Thing -- 16:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If those do get checked, I would suggest checking at the same time; User:C-Liberal appeared just after RJII's account was banned and immediately dove into his areas of interest to support his favored positions...  I wouldn't normally mention an account with so few edits, but I assume the effort of checking is less if it's done when other accounts are already being examined.  Oh, and then there's, but that account has already been blocked pending evidence from them that they are, in fact, RJII and not an impersonator. I thought it couldn't hurt to mention them for the sake of completeness, though. --Aquillion 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

❌ Mackensen (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''