Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RJ CG

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

RZimmerwald



 * Code letter: B, F


 * Supporting evidence:


 * RZimmerwald has recently made their appearance in the Eastern European article sphere. They have already accused editors of stalking and vandalism on their talk pages, used "vandalism" to describe edits on multiple pages while they themselves vandalized articles via undiscussed moves to delete "coup" as describing Soviet actions, and denounced facts regarding the Baltics as "nationalistic agitprop." (The entire thread is useful reading.) Their deft use of diff's, their interest in Estonia-related articles where Digwuren (recently returned from a 1 year block) is editing, all point to this being a user that must be returning from a ban and wishes to not be seen as renewing a prior conflict with Digwuren and with Baltic editors in general. I request that RZimmerwald be checked against all users blocked or banned prior in the Eastern European article space. —PētersV (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In particular, I have reasons to suspect RZimmerwald may be

whose patterns of editing on Eastern European areas were quite similar. So far, the main differentiating factor seems to be that RZimmerwald hasn't gone for mass uncivility -- one of the factors that led to Anonimu's banning. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Two characteristic facetsof both RZimmerwald's and Anonimu's editing are interest in "world-revolutionary heroism", to put it bluntly, and interest in Romanian recent history.  Neither alone is unheard of among other Wikipedians, but a combination of these two, especially in combination with factors such as careless selection of sources, clinging onto any random Google Books' find as "serious scholars" even when it is in obvious error, or a minor POV among mainstream scholars, are so unusual as to arouse strong suspicion.  Perhaps somebody more familiar with developments of these topics on Wikipedia will be able to corroborate or refute this hypothesis? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * listing under "Anonimu" (who is banned) even if it is stale. -- lucasbfr  talk 09:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My contributions show that I do not particularly care about the "Baltic" region. Vecrumba has misrepresented my remarks while at the same time omitting his allegation of my poor understanding of history. Some users above have followed me around in articles on which they've had no edit history and systematically deleted my sourced edits simply out of spite. This edit, for example, is totally unjustified. The user Digwuren has had no history of editing articles about Portugal. Yet, he somehow expresses an interest shortly after meeting me on another forum. These accusations made against me above have nothing to do with sockpuppetry but are part of a concerted effort of a militant clique of seeking to censor this encyclopedia. RZimmerwald (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Does your familiarity with Wikipedia policies extend to WP:NPA? -- Biruitorul Talk 01:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that the following accounts are likely related:
 * Regarding Anonimu, technical evidence is . -- Avi (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Anonimu, technical evidence is . -- Avi (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Anonimu, technical evidence is . -- Avi (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Anonimu, technical evidence is . -- Avi (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Anonimu, technical evidence is . -- Avi (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Anonimu, technical evidence is . -- Avi (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Anonimu, technical evidence is . -- Avi (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Anonimu, technical evidence is . -- Avi (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Anonimu, technical evidence is . -- Avi (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Anonimu, technical evidence is . -- Avi (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * While some of the farm is in ranges that are too dynamic, most of them have had their -- Avi (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/RJ CG may need to be merged in. -- Avi (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Case merged from Requests for checkuser/Case/Anonimu;
 * All confirmed named accounts indef blocked and tagged;
 * Tiptoety talk 01:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 01:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That was weird. But there's more.

User:Nierva, mentioned above as a likely sock puppet of User:RJ CG, has already been indefinitely blocked by YellowMonkey as a sock puppet of Jacob Peters (see also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters). Yet, that seems to be the only user who appears both here and in that category. Is it a coincidental anomaly, or are both sets actually parts of an even larger puppeteering operation? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 02:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Without getting too specific, because of what the IPs are, it is possible that Nierva is not RJ CG, but Jacob Peters. Either way, the block should stand. -- Avi (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)



I may be going out on a limb here, but Beatle Fab Four's habit of repeatedly appearing, after long hiatuses, minutes after somebody edits articles in his "sphere of interest" -- also about Eastern Europe --, appears to indicate he may be a puppet of somebody. I can't guess whose, but seeing the ring above, is he related to RJ CG ? (I do not have personal experience with Jacob Peters, so I can't in good faith suggest a link between BFF and JP -- it would look uncomfortably fishing-like.) ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There does not seem to be evidence linking the above with the sockring. If you have evidence, please bring it here and if it is sufficient, the check can be run. -- Avi (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks anyway. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Asks questions



 * Code letter: B)

I struck up a new conversation on Talk:Holodomor with a new user today, who created a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Denial_of_the_Holodomor#Contradiction_between_lead_and_content. new section for discussion (pointer to section)]. After several exchanges, the new (today, and single-purpose account so far) editor made an accusation that I'm essentially unfit to remark on any editor having a POV. This remark to me clearly indicated a prior editing relationship. Based on the tone, there are two choices, one user still banned (Mark Street), but in the wrong arena, the other, Vlad Fedorov, recently returned from a year-long block, and who I believe may be wishing to not provoke undue attention. But for whatever reason, some editors find it irresistable to comment regarding my POV and qualifiations. (The banned Anonimu also crossed my mind, but also wrong arena.)
 * Supporting evidence:


 * My quote of Asks questions in bold, note tone, and my response

Compare Asks questions single-purpose account tone to (so far, single-purpose account on Talk:Holodomor) versus Vlad Fedorov addressing me here:


 * In all fairness, while banned, one of my better sparring partners, at least he came with sources.

Whoever Asks questions is, they know me from before and should not be hiding behind an alternate identity. Thanks! —PētersV (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The "likely" is a valid possibility (in keeping with prior interactions) I had not considered. —PētersV (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is already a Requests for checkuser/Case/Vlad fedorov. Perhaps this should be moved there.  —Wknight94 (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there's an existing request, I agree with this. I'll let an admin clerk delete this one, and move the information across. How do you turn this on (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll leave here since we're not sure who the sockmaster is. There's not much useful there anyway.  —Wknight94 (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Technical evidence indicates that the following users are likely related:

Vlad Fedorov

-- Avi (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merged case from Requests for checkuser/Case/Asks questions. RJ CG has been inactive for several months and their block had expired so there is no block evasion.  I am assuming User:Asks questions is simply a new account and have permablocked RJ CG as an abandoned account.  No block for User:Asks questions. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

RJ CG





 * Code letter: E

Puppeting to hide 3RR violation on Toomas Hendrik Ilves


 * reverting 2008-05-12 13:20
 * reverting 2008-05-12 20:08
 * reverting 2008-05-12 20:20
 * reverting 2008-05-13 01:22
 * reverting 2008-05-13 02:56

User:RJ CG has block log as long as your arm, all for the same thing. 194.126.101.134 (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving from Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser (original diff). – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already requested this checkuser privately and it came back confirmed. is blocked for a month. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - for the record - A l is o n  ❤ 04:34, 14 May 2008 (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.''