Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJII/Archive

Report date September 28 2009, 13:22 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

I suspect that User:Introman is a sock for banned editor User:RJII who had many sockpuppet accounts (e.g., User:All Male Action). Both users edited on the same group of articles (mainly Capitalism and articles related to Liberalism, presented a similar viewpoint and were blocked numerous times for edit-warring. Introman's first edits showed a knowledge of WP procedures and included many reversions of other editors.
 * Evidence submitted by User:The Four Deuces

There are other similarities:
 * creation of templates supposedly to prevent edit wars,
 * discussion of creating new accounts,

The Four Deuces (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by The Four Deuces (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that User:Introman is User:RJII. No CheckUser necessary. MuZemike 18:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 18:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by The Four Deuces
This new user is obviously tendentious and the article Capitalism was a victim of tendentious editing by User:Introman who was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of the banned editor User:RJII. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by The Four Deuces (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

– Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that this is the same person as RJII. No CU necessary. MuZemike 19:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

– per private conversation with the blocked account. Behavioral evidence seems to point towards it, but I feel technical evidence will be needed just in case. MuZemike 17:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 19:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


User:Introman

User:Dupledreux

Evidence submitted by The Four Deuces
New tendentious editor who edited four articles before discussing on talk page and like RJII does multiple reversions of each edit. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by The Four Deuces (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

– behavioral evidence clearly indicates that Default013 = RJII. No CU needed. MuZemike 15:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 15:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by The Four Deuces
Similarity of recent accounts to RJII and suspected socks is discussed at ANI. FredUnavailable has said:  "I am fine with any sort of Checkuser." He commented: "I just checked out the RJII pages and I'll admit that my Talk style is uncannily similar."

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

The statement from Elen (below) is accurate. I am not, however, related to any RJII. I am confident that the Checkuser will prove this to be the case. I will point two things out to the the Checkuser: 1) RJII claimed to be from Philadelphia, not my location; 2) The kinds of articles I have edited are completely different than what RJII edited. Most of his were on politics, economics, and global warming, three topics on which I have editing nothing. Clearly no intersection of editorial interests.--FredUnavailable (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Checkuser should note that Moonbatssuck, Idetestlunarbats, Moonhoaxbat and FredUnavailable are all the same person, who has changed their name repeatedly on being requested to do so (although with some irregularities in process). It would be very helpful if Checkuser could determine if this individual is also an RJII sock.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by The Four Deuces (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * . Checkuser evidence would be nice, but I am not sure how much use it will be. This case might have to be decided on via behavioral evidence regardless of the result. NW ( Talk ) 20:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Introman is ✅ as related to and.

Other than that, most of the accounts are either stale or blocked.

The following are related to each other, (as I believe was said), but appear ❌ to RJII:



J.delanoy gabs adds 05:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Goalyoman and Tottalo indefinitely blocked and tagged. FredUnavailable is freely editing, so there is nothing to do there. The other unblocked accounts have been looooong abandoned. MuZemike 21:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by The Four Deuces
"Can I touch it?" has argued extensively in the Classical liberalism article with other editors. His confrontational style seems similar to "Introman" who was blocked as a suspected sock for "RJII" and made similar edits to the article. The talk pages for both editors show conflict with other editors. Both editors were blocked for edit-warring at Classical liberalism and claimed they were not edit-warring. While the "Can I touch it?" account has existed since 2008, it has been used sporadically and became active again within the last several months. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The style is similar, and the aggressive responses. Its worth a check -- Snowded  TALK  06:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added Immoral moralist (IM). This editor began editing recently only on the Fascism article, an article previously edited by Introman. IM's first edit shows experience and his argumentative style on the talk page, edit-warring on the article page and inserting POV templates as part of his dispute are reasons for suspicion. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a similarity between the comments of the three recent accounts:
 * Haha that's pretty funny. Ok if that's what you want to believe. As I posted the other day, I'm pretty much done editing Wikipedia anyway. I figure the public knows nothing on it can be trusted, so there's really no point in editing it. It's a waste of time. Introman (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh geez. Hah! Can I touch it? (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. HAHA. Those names aren't from me! Looks like a lot of users got screwed over! Too bad for them. You guys should REALLY be more careful. If all anyone has to do is throw allegations around, then the system just doesn't work. I guess you're going to add my usernames to the list. So silly! :D Immoral moralist (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

What's this all about? I'm no sockpuppet! Immoral moralist (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes "Can I touch it" is another username of mine. But I point the accusers to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. It says: "The default position on Wikipedia is that editors who register should edit using one account only. The purpose of this policy is to forbid deceptive or misleading use of multiple accounts and to explain where editors may legitimately use a second (alternate) account. A second account used deceptively in violation of this policy is known as a sock puppet." It doesn't say you MUST use one account only. And note it says "A second account used deceptively in violation of this policy is known as a sock puppet." I've used more than one username and will continue to do so, no matter what happens here, but they're not being used "deceptively." I've had plenty of opportunity to use username to revert back something from another of my usernames, but have never done so. There is no deception. So they're not "sockpuppets." Immoral moralist (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm done here, and have nothing else to say over this trivial matter. Lots of people on Wikipedia have multiple usernames. If people have nothing better to go around Wikipedia trying to find which usernames may be from the same person, as an excuse for a hobby, that's pretty pathetic. Immoral moralist (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah Can I Touch it is another I username but that's not sockpuppets, because it's separate articles . A sockpuppet is when you're pretending you're someone else to get around 3RR and things like that. I never use the same name on the same article, because I like having a separate mindset for each article or similar articles. Obviously I've had plenty of opportunity to violate the 3RR secretely with a sockpuppet but it's never happened. My usernames aren't shared in any articles so they're not sockpuppets. Immoral moralist (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I have no personal knowledge of this user, but certainly his style is very similar to material written under the name "Introman" and, going further back, to material written under various other user names. Style is a hard thing to pin down, but in this case it includes: frequent insulting remarks, followed by a claim that he never makes insulting remarks. Frequent demands for "clarification" or "explanation", but when patient explanations are offered, a repetition of the same demands. Careless editing (typos not corrected), followed by a demand that other editors should correct his mistakes instead of pointing them out. And, finally, an inclination to argue points ad infinitum, so that discussions on the talk page fill up many pages without ever reaching a conclusion. However, as I said, this is all subjective. My own inclination is to try to ignore editors like this or, if a response seems absolutely necessary, to make it very brief. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
except from all these accounts are  and blocked indefinitely. SpitfireTally-ho! 08:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ that Immoral Moralist and Can I Touch It are the same editor; behavioral analysis should be done on User:Jadabocho as well. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Jadabocho also indefintely blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 18:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by The Four Deuces
Caremerger seems to be similar to the other two recent accounts. It was set up recently, edits only one article and argues endlessly about an obscure point, in this case that the American Revolution was a war against corporatism. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I support the claim made by The Four Deuces. Caremerger has engaged in highly similar activities as RJII and that user's associated sockpuppets. For instance, RJII's sockpuppet Immoral Moralist was banned in this month of February with activity on the Fascism article. Caremerger began as a user on the same month and has also made contributions to the Fascism article as can be seen here. Also Caremerger's focus on the topic of classical liberalism and classical liberal figures like Adam Smith is exactly like the sockpuppet Can I touch it? of RJII. Just look at the contributions of that sockpuppet as linked here and look at the section on American Corporatism added by Caremerger in the Corporatism article:. Here's a section of text from a discussion on the Corporatism article's talk page, where Caremerger, like the sockpuppet "Can I touch it?" uses Adam Smith as a source: "Nevertheless, if you must reference hard-copy, written text to verify common-sense logic, then Alan B. Kruegar wrote a synopsis in his introduction to Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations (p. xii) which reads: "He also worried incessantly that giant corporations would come to dominate particular industries and, led by self-interest, use their influence with government to unfairly thwart their competitors and suppress the wages of their workers." The point of me addressing this is that the patterns between Caremerger and the sockpuppets of RJII are almost identical. Also, wouldn't checking the IP address show if it is the same user?--R-41 (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Caremerger like User:RJII and that user's sockpuppets engage in a similarly uncooperative and anti-social manner. I asked a random user to be a mediator to the corporatism article which Caremerger claimed he would respect the user's judgments. However Caremerger later launched a personal attack against me, the mediator and The Four Deuces, claiming that me and the two other users are part of a "conspiracy" against her or him and accusing me of being "paid" by corporatists and referring to me as "you corporatist people". This is slanderous behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 18:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by The Four Deuces
Darkstar1st appears to be another sock of RJII, whose most recently blocked sockpuppet was Caremerger. While the account was set up in 2005 it has been used sporadically. Recently the account has become active again on Libertarianism and Left libertarianism, two articles that User:Introman a suspected sock of RJII had also edited disruptively. The similarity is POV-pushing, edit-warring, placing dispute tags on articles and an abrasive manner of responding to other editors. The discussion on the user's talk page shows a similar pattern of being issued warnings from other editors and responding in a combative manner. I find it interesting that Darkstar1st replied to my comments on his talk page as "Deuces" although since Caremerger was blocked I changed my signature to "TFD". TFD (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

This claim is made in bad faith. My edits concern unqualified sources, all of which come from a Santa Clara County, CA. The Stanford Encyclopedia, and speakers At SCU are trying to add POV content to several articles about Libertarianism. One of the sources I flagged was a link to a search engine, the others to self-published blogs, and 1 book review. How can 1 county produce so many unknown "experts" on a centuries old concept, all dating from 2002 forward? I fear someone is purposely manipulating wiki. As for combative, most of my undo were valid tags that I placed after being threatened with a ban. Curious how a ban was threatened, yet the bogus sources were allowed to stand until other users noticed the scam. I suspect the real puppets are the professors who are trying to shade the libertarian party as socialist, egalitarian at best. The most weighty source, the Stanford encyclopedia, uses a book by Peter Vallentyne, Left Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate, on the 2nd page list John Locke as an egalitarian, which is clearly false, "Locke believed that ownership of property is created by the application of labor. In addition, property precedes government and government cannot "dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily." Karl Marx later critiqued Locke's theory of property in his social theory." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke The next time someone yells "vandal", I hope the 18 y/o editor who threatened me will actually view the source in questionDarkstar1st (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Update, 2 of the 5 sources I flagged have been removed, the others have vast support for removing also.Darkstar1st (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

update 3, the 3rd of 5 sources I flagged has been removed: http://www.zcommunications.org/prospects-for-libertarian-socialism-by-david-baake a 16 y/o child. Would someone please review the standards other editors have used to reverse my edits, and threaten to ban me.Darkstar1st (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

ps, apologies for the abbreviation of your name: "deuces", that word make me laughDarkstar1st (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"responding in a combative manner", Please cite example of a combative response to editors. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by TFD (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

❌. No comment on the IP. --Deskana (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by The Four Deuces
Although this is a new account, it bears similarity with RJII and suspected known socks that were active in the article Classical liberalism. The name is semi-pornographic, reminiscent of names such as "All Male Action" and "Can I touch it?". The first edit made was to add to an article but the second was a reversal with the inaccurate reason provided as "vandalism". TFD (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Theliberalhumanist, a recent account whose only edits have been to Fascism, presenting a view that Chinese Communism is a form of fascism, seems suspicious too, this the name is similar, the first edits are to articles not talk pages, and he makes several corrections after each edit. I have added the IP address this account used before registering. TFD (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not my IP adress. An administrator can quickly confirm this. My original goal, as I've stated before, was to remove that section. See here, I was not the one that added it, I was merely trying to clean it up. --Theliberalhumanist (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am also adding User:Trueliberal who seems suspicious: similar name, also editing the lead of Classical liberalism, makes multiple minor edits in sequence, does not use talk page, and edits after Bullet Dropper is blocked. His most recent edit adding Mises to the lead with the note he "is also credited in the book used as a source" is incorrect: Mises was not mentioned in that regard in the book at all. This shows the only reference made to him. TFD (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims. I find it frustrating that my name is being brought into a sockpuppet investigation, because the reasons for it: includes the word "liberal" (a common, everyday word), starts by editing articles instead of talk pages (are there any users that do otherwise?), and making several corrections (I'm still a new user, I'm not familiar with the wiki format) are very, very vague claims that could apply to any new user. I especially made sure to read the notability and citing guidelines after creating an account, after my first edit, attempting to remove the section with unreliable sources, was reversed. Contrary to what TFD has stated, the section on the PRC was included in the article before I began editing, as you can see here (under "Present China"). I never believed that Chinese Communism was a form of fascism, I was trying to remove that paragraph (for the same reasons that TFD has been accusing me of adding it), but after seeing my removal of the section reversed by another user, User:Collect, my goal then became to clean the section up, since the sources were not reliable, with vague and ambiguous statments. I did not do anything even remotely close to vandalism, and all my actions and edits were in good faith, as according to Wikipedia's policies. All of the content I've added is reliably sourced, and comes mainly from what I could find on Google Scholar. I've never touched the liberalism article before and have no idea who RJIII is. You can check my IP to be sure, I can guarantee it's different, but I'm not sure how this procedure works, being a new user.--Theliberalhumanist (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also not accustomed to writing on a wiki, hence by multiple edits. I hope this doesn't affect my reputation and reliability, should I continue editing. Also, the multiple edits is not a rare attribute, I've seen other users with the same editing habit on different articles, why am I being targeted?--Theliberalhumanist (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * An additional note, in an ironic twist, my first edit, which was reversed, was an attempt to remove the section on the PRC, since like TFD, I considered it a "fringe extremist point of view." However, this change was quickly reversed by another established user, so I surmised that if the section must be there, then it at least must be reliably sourced with more neutral, more academic sources. So now strangely, the entire thing is gone, which had been the original intention. --Theliberalhumanist (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If the above is confusing, to summarize, the chronological state of events: 1. An anonmyous user, days ago, adds a dubious section on the Fascism article regarding the PRC. 2. A day ago, I noticed the section, created an account, and attempted to remove it, noting that it violated WP:RS. 3.User:Collect reverses my removal of the section. 4. I assume the best, and instead of removing the section and possibly getting into trouble, expand the section, this time with more reliable sources, instead of the potentially biased ones used in the article. 5. TFD notices my name, with an very slight similarity to a known vandal (I assume?), and concludes that I am him, without thoroughly going through the history of the article, confusing my actions with another user's. This may be an honest mistake, but if you look through the history of the article, it'll become clear that I did not create the section that TFD accuses me of, I was trying to clean it up.--Theliberalhumanist (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
There is absolutely no credible evidence to assert that Theliberalhumanist is a sock at all. Period. Bringing anyone to SPI over content disputes is, IMHO, contrary to any accepted practice. Collect (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support a checkuser on (no comment on the other user or IP), if only because the user bears an obvious resemblance to, and I'm interested in if Bullet Dropper is a sock as well. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Trueliberal" has made no substantial edits to make anyone assert that he is a "sock." The idea of "evidence" is that some sort of actual evidence is required for CU to ensue. Collect (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Here I am. "Trueliberal". I am not a sock. I just make minor contributions.--Trueliberal (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Comment to clerk - could we get an endorsement for the checkuser on bullet dropper? Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

these accounts are valid sockpuppets; even if not declared (there has been no block evasion or editing of the same articles). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC) these accounts are valid sockpuppets as well; even if not declared (there has been no block evasion or editing of the same articles). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC) –MuZemike 20:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) FrenchTouchLiberal, Trueliberal, Theliberalhumanist, and Bullet Dropper are all ❌ to each other.
 * 2) The following accounts are ✅ as each other:
 * 1) The following accounts are ✅ as each other:
 * 2) *
 * 1) *
 * 1) No comment on the above reported IP.

I don't see any problems with the above sockpuppets; I will delete the information from history if requested where the socks have been valid. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not see what legitimate reason Rapidosity has for having a second account.   TFD (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just reblocked Bullet Dropper for continued trolling and generally being obnoxious, so I'm not particularly into the idea of defending the sock, other than to say that there were no shared articles between them, save one minor edit nearly a year ago. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Still need one block. Is there anyway that the removed users need to be blocked? -- DQ  (t)  (e)  11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've thrown up the block; the removed users are kosher. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like all that are needed to be blocked are blocked. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  03:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Major Dump is an account that had a brief string of edits in the Fall of 2018 and then reappeared a week ago. During these two brief stints, this account has made well over 200 edits, almost all of which constitute an extremely focused effort to insert language about “increased regulation” into articles about fascism –– most of it relentless talk page bludgeoning. While their arguments have not been at all persuasive to others, they do appear to be practiced at Wikilawyering, and at the art of bating (see e.g. this exchange: ).

These patterns made me suspect that they are someone’s sockpuppet, and possibly an LTA, so I searched through the archives of fascism-related talk pages for similar themes and discovered the long-term abuser RJII, who fits in numerous ways.

Going way back to 2006, RJII and their socks have been almost entirely focused on editing articles related to big political ideas such as Fascism, Libertarianism, Classical liberalism, Capitalism and Anarchism, and all focus on pushing a right-libertarian POV about limited government versus the purported tyranny of collectivism. They are also characterized by a hyper-focus on a single topic at a time, with a signature style of bludgeoning which is easy to pick out from the crowd of similar POV editors. User:Rick Norwood said it perfectly back in 2010, commenting on a past SPI for this user: Frequent demands for "clarification" or "explanation", but when patient explanations are offered, a repetition of the same demands.

On all of these points, Major Dump is a clear match. Selecting representative diffs took quite some work simply because there are so many to dig through, but see especially:


 * Arguing that fascism is primarily defined by an emphasis on control and regulation: (RJII sock User:Introman) versus,  (Major Dump, just two among many possible diffs).


 * Arguing that NPOV requires us to note a purported significant minority of historians who are skeptical that fascism is an exclusively right-wing phenomenon: (RJII sock User:Immoral moralist) versus  (Major Dump).


 * "Pay attention to what you're doing." (RJII sock User:Can I touch it?) versus "Pay closer attention to what you're doing."  (Major Dump)


 * Curtly demanding in the imperative voice that others “Justify” / “Explain”: (RJII sock User:Caremerger) versus  (Major Dump).


 * Editing the same passage in Libertarianism: (RJII sock User:Rapidosity) versus   (Major Dump).


 * Multiple question marks: ‘’Why???” (Immoral moralist) versus “What??”  (Major Dump).


 * “Deletion” of “sourced” information as accusation: (Introman) versus  (Major Dump)


 * Wikilawyering about the limits of established consensus: (Immoral moralist) versus  (Major Dump).


 * Claiming that a single reversion proves that there is no consensus: (Rapidosity) versus  (Major Dump).


 * Stylistically too, RJII and Major Dump appear to share an affinity for using all-caps for emphasis (though on its own this is hardly dispositive), e.g., , (RJII socks) versus , ,  (Major Dump).

Note that these are just a sampling of diffs. More could certainly be found but this report is already quite long. I’ve also encountered a number of other accounts that look to be a match for this user editing the Fascism talk page during the intervening years, but since they’ve stopped editing I see no reason to over-burden the current case by detailing them.

Finally, note also that the borderline-inappropriate nature of Major Dump’s username is similar to past RJII socks such as User:Can I touch it? and User:All Male Action. Pinging User:The Four Deuces who filed the previous SPI cases against this user all those years ago, in case they have any additional insight. I haven't requested checkuser because I figured the previously confirmed sockpuppet activity is too old. Many thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Good point about checkuser, TFD (and good catch about RJII's 2005 edit to Talk:Economics of fascism). It might be worth noting as well then that another recently created account, Precious delicate sweet little baby, looks like a DUCK too. They stopped editing on January 31st and Major Dump recommenced on February 1st. See e.g.
 * Very similar WP:1AM behavior here (Precious delicate sweet little baby) versus here (Major Dump). Note too the pattern of all-caps usage in both cases.
 * Most economies are "mixed economies" (Precious delicate sweet little baby) versus  (Major Dump).
 * I won't go on since I believe there's already enough there, but more could easily be provided if necessary. It's looking more and more like we are dealing with a rather prolific LTA. Generalrelative (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Probably not necessary at this point, but I will note that previous RJII sock User:Immoral moralist made precisely the same defense as Major Dump has made below: versus.
 * For anyone who stumbles upon this case in the future, it may also be worth highlighting RJII's almost-too-on-the-nose cartoon villain monologue just after their indef back in 2006: . An excerpt: Hence, the RJII account served largely to wear particular individuals down, pyschologically, who were judged to be enemies. Their personality types were discerned and appropriate measures were taken to exploit their weaknesses for maximum psychological torment. We were successful in driving several individuals off of Wikipedia, or away from particular articles, who through their hands up in disgust (probably literally). I do not doubt that they will continue to attempt to disrupt the project in this way, even after the current batch of socks are blocked. Best keep an eye out. Generalrelative (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

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

There is a similarity between Major Dump's discussion at Talk:Fascism and Immoral Moralist at Talk:Fascism/Archive 33. In both cases, the editors argue that some experts say fascism is not right-wing and it is against neutrality to omit this.
 * My complaint was that a significant view was being left out, the view that fascism is viewed by a good number of historians to be neither left nor right, i.e. a mixture of left and right, or centrist. Immoral moralist 16:11, 3 February 2010
 * It's clearly POV pushing for the article to just state with a straight-face definitively that Fascism IS far right wing, no dispute whatsoever. There are notable scholarly experts (not just extremist non-scholarly sources) that disagree with that, and everybody here knows this. Major Dump 16:11, 2 February 2022

It is also interesting that both RJII and Major Dump joined discussions at Talk:Economics of fascism, which attracts far fewer editors and inserted or sought to insert the view that fascism was characterized by government intervention. Discussion on that page is sporadic, with for example no discussion between 2010 and 2017.
 * The definition clearly says economic fascism is an "economic system," and notice it says "heavily regulated." RJII 05:25, 2 December 2005
 * Quote from source: "In general terms, the main characteristics of Nazi economic policy were (1) the growth of government fiscal intervention in the German economy through ambitious programs that involved huge public expenditure, and (2) a tightly regulated economy, through more intense restrictions and controls on markets." Major Dump 18:54, 4 February 2022

Also, a check-user might help because in the past RJII has created multiple socks and kept some of them as sleepers.

TFD (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Major Dump here. Another party alerted me this was going on, so I could defend myself. (The person that started this should have had the courtesy to let me know, whether it's "legally" required or not). PDSLB and Major Dump are both me. I looked it up and saw no rule against that. I forgot my username/password for MajorDump, so created another account, PDSLB. (I forget passwords a lot). Then when I remembered it, I and went back to it. In order to avoid appearance of sockpuppetry, I didn't use both in the same article. I'm not sure, but I don't think I even went back to PDSLB at all after I went back to Major Dump. I would never engage in sockpuppetry. As everyone here knows, I've could have easily reverted each username's edits with both usernames, or faked more "consensus" in discussions then there actually was, but never did it. Have never done it. Would never do it, as that's against the rules. (I've even been abiding by the 3RR, for crying out loud) So claims of "sockpuppetry" don't apply here. As far as RJII, the block of RJII doesn't apply to me either. I'm not "RJII." If you somehow come to another conclusion that you have enough reason to block me, please allow me the opportunity to briefly defend myself from that claim before you block me, because if you block me, then I would have no recourse, as I wouldn't be able to type anything in here to show you you're mistaken. That wouldn't be fair. (Or, block me, but let me know how to defend myself afterwards, to get the block overturned, if that's possible). Major Dump (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Major Dump's justification for using similar accounts is similar to Immoral Moralist:
 * "Yeah Can I Touch it is another I username but that's not sockpuppets, because it's separate articles . A sockpuppet is when you're pretending you're someone else to get around 3RR and things like that. I never use the same name on the same article, because I like having a separate mindset for each article or similar articles. Obviously I've had plenty of opportunity to violate the 3RR secretely with a sockpuppet but it's never happened. My usernames aren't shared in any articles so they're not sockpuppets." [Immoral moralist 20:40, 9 February 2010]

Further to what I wrote above, I see the following similarities: use of sarcastic user names, using two socks for different articles, use of sleeper accounts.

TFD (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * What other response can you have if someone is pointing out you've had more than one username as if that means they're violating some kind of policy but to point out it's not. Do people ever actually cave to that accusation? Major Dump (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Funny. I just looked closer at that RJII block, and that account was apparently blocked merely for being a "shared account." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ARJII So it looks like no one is even blocked, just the account is; I guess the purpose was to disperse the people using the account to individual accounts. So what is this whole proceeding even about? Major Dump (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * One must always be careful distinguishing shared POV from sockpuppetry. The extent to which that is a concern is proportional to the popularity of the POV, and in this case, as minority/fringe views on fascism go, RJII and the two suspected sox share a relatively niche take. The specific focus on the term "regulation", in particular, catches my attention as a bit different from most rhetoric one hears trying to redefine fascism. I am mostly convinced, from what I've read so far, that Major Dump is RJII, and a bit less convinced (but still >50%) that PDSLB is Major Dump. For now I'd like to know what CU has to say about the latter possibility, and will loop back to the RJII question after that. Please compare Major Dump to PDSLB. For evidence, note that PDSLB shares MD's unusal views on consensus and reverts, and ctrl+f "regulation" across both of their all-time contribs  . See also how often their ESes contain "source"; obviously it's a common term on Wikipedia, but it appears in a whole ~10% of MD's ESes and ~25% of PDSLB's. If there is any useful log data regarding past RJII sox, please compare against that as well, but I'm prepared to handle that side of things on purely behavioral evidence if needed.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 05:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * -, and  are all ✅ to one another.  Girth Summit  (blether)  09:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * MD and PDSLB are causing disruption in the same topic area, with major temporal overlap and a clear familiarity with site policy that would nullify any newbie AGF. They've managed to carefully steer clear of editing the same pages, which on its own would put this on the border between a block and warning for MD (with a block of PDSLB being a given). The fairly high likelihood that they are also both RJII, I think, tilts it over to indefs for both. Generalrelative has laid out a strong set of similarities between MD and RJII, most persuasively the somewhat unusual interpretation that their own revert means there is no consensus, which in all my time on Wikipedia I don't think I've seen someone say to defend edit-warring—and the stylistic simlarities and similar preferred phrases like "Pay attention", as well as the provocative usernames. As we know that MD has been socking with PDSLB, we can treat sockpuppetry as a behavioral similarity too. On these bases, I think it is justified to block PDSLB as a confirmed sock of MD and suspected sock of RJII, and MD as a confirmed sockmaster and suspected sock of RJII. therefor.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 22:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * On the basis of the request and Girth Summit's check (I did not check myself) I have blocked:
 * I will leave tagging up to you, . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will leave tagging up to you, . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will leave tagging up to you, . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will leave tagging up to you, . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ivanvector. (including procedural tag update on master from "suspected" to "blocked", not reflecting any new determination). Closing.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 18:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, whoops, master's page is protected. . Could an admin please either unprotect (which I don't see a clear reason to have protected) or add   to the sockpuppeteer template there? Thanks.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 18:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Tamzin - I just went ahead and amended the tag for you, since just doing that was the quickest way to handle the request. ;-) Closing SPI...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)