Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJR3333/Archive

09 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * (removed SqueakBox as master)


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Wikistalk shows an interesting crossover of articles, not only a high concentration of pedophilia/age of consent related articles but more diverse articles such as 13 (number), Sigmund Freud and Great Famine (Ireland) which are all red flags given the prior high concentration of common articles. RJR3333 was created and used during SqueakBox's indef block, it raises the question as to whether SqueakBox should have been unblocked in the first place. Simiarly the ongoing ANI thread at ANI (in particular the ANI sub-section shows ongoing problems in the same areas as SqueakBox has previously been involved in conflict, and RJR3333 may well have been facing entirely different sanctions if the connection was known. 2 lines of K  303  08:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Like I stated at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: No, SqueakBox was a good editor. One who, if talking about the same SqueakBox, was wrongly reported as being pro-pedophilia by Fox News (although that Fox News report was late about the pedophilia problem anyway, seeing as it was taken care of a couple of years before 2010 and hasn't been rampant since that time). See here. In fact, I just got through talking with him this past week (Wednesday) about his departure. But RJR3333 is indeed a sockpuppet. His original account is User:FDR. In addition to comparing these diffs, and FDR's sudden reappearance in light of RJR3333's recent editing troubles, compare the bulk of their contributions and you'll see what I mean. I interacted with FDR last year as well. See here. And I feel stupid for not having seen his tampering with RJR3333's user page for what it was. But FDR was so unbelievably destructive that it didn't occur to me that he could be the relatively "new" and well-meaning editor RJR3333. And FDR's edits definitely show what I mean about RJR3333's belief that the age of consent should be 18 across the board and that a person should be 18 (and not 16) to be diagnosed with pedophilia -- beliefs he claims not to have under his RJR3333 account, although I have seen both accounts display such beliefs. Flyer22 (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've no doubt FDR is a sock based on his July edits alone, but a further Wikistalk report raises more questions about whether SqueakBox and FDR/RJR3333 are related. 2 lines of K  303  08:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, as stated at the noticeboard, I worked with SqueakBox for years on pedophilia and child sexual abuse articles...and I therefore know the personalities of these two editors. They are very different, especially seeing that SqueakBox, unlike RJR3333, understands Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and how to appropriately edit Wikipedia. SqueakBox and RJR3333's editing and personalities are not similar. And there will be no match in that regard. There will be when comparing FDR and RJR3333. Flyer22 (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "SqueakBox . . . understands Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and how to appropriately edit Wikipedia"? Really? Based on a previous interaction between FDR and SqueakBox I've got a bit of doubt they are in fact the same editor now (since I doubt SqueakBox has the sophistication to set something like that up a long time in advance), but might be an idea to clear up any doubt though. 2 lines of K  303  08:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, even with his extensive blocklog, SqueakBox understands Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Anyone who has read the noticeboard case against RJR3333 should be able to see that RJR3333 has WP:COMPETENCE issues. A lot of good Wikipedia editors have been excessively blocked. That doesn't mean that they don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. RJR3333 truly does not. Flyer22 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note the very different wikichecker results: http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=SqueakBox&l=350 and http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=RJR3333&l=all . RJR and SB have very different times they tend to edit. I haven't looked at editing style, but this is a very strong indication this is not the same person. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that FDR and me are the same person. However, when I changed the age of consent in North America article from 16 to 18, that was a joke/vandalism. I stand by saying that Flyer22's claim that I have a bias in favor of the age of consent being 18 is false, because that's the opposite of my opinion. That is not an indication of my position. Sometimes when I was in a silly mood I vandalized wikipedia, but that's not a reflection of my political views.  --RJR3333 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, Malke2010 and off2riorob/youreallycan both argued that I have a bias in favor of the age of consent being younger than this age, and my edits to the Roman Polanski article, for example, would tend to suggest that bias, if anything. --RJR3333 (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And no, I'm not Squeakbox, and I'll stop using FDR and all my other wikipedia accounts and only edit from this one from now on. And I'll stop making jokes like the one changing age of majority in the USA from 16 to 18 and the one about Sigmund Frued being the Democrats candidate instead of Kerry. --RJR3333 (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the post I was referring that argues against Flyer22's accusation that I have a bias in favor of the age of consent being 16, 17, or 18 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski#Sexual_abuse_npov. I reworded the statement that Polanski sexually abused the under 16 girl to having sexual contact with her, to make it more npov. I also reworded the pedophilia article's common definition of pedophilia as sexual abuse of any minor to sexual contact with any minor to make it more npov. So Flyer22's accusation of bias against me is false. And this fact is relevant because one of the reasons she proposed the topic ban for me was this non-existent bias. --RJR3333 (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No matter what you state, FDR displayed the type of bias you claim that you don't have. And I've seen your RJR3333 account display the same bias. But this discussion is not about that anyway. Not to mention, your bias was the least of reasons I was considering proposing a topic ban on you. And now I have nothing more to state to you on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not believe I should be blocked because I agree to stop using sockpuppets. And I have many well sourced improvements to wikipedia's articles and I can show evidence that many of contributions have been good. Also I can demonstrate that the majority of Flyer22's accusations against me, with the exception of sockpuppetry, are false, and I can demonstrate that Flyer22 has been biased against me from the very beginning. --RJR3333 (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that after I told the user that I thought his agreement to stop socking now was disingenuous because he only admitted to it after he was caught (and was about to be CU'd), now he's just admitted to two more in this diff: User:LordKitchener16 and User:KingLeopold'sGhost. If we don't find a connection to Squeakbox, the clerk may want to move this report to a new page with RJR (or whoever is chronologically first) as a different sockmaster. And indef the socks, and strongly consider indeffing the main account. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to comment on the below confirmation of a sock of SqueakBox's, we should keep in mind WP:Clean start. SqueakBox left his former account, there wasn't a block that forced him to leave it, and, if we state that the other editor is him, he is not editing in the same contentious areas that he was before. Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that RJR3333 said that User:Revenues-expense=netincome was another sock of his. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * primarily to check for sleepers since he has already admitted socking. I've reviewed this editors contribs in a fair amount of detail at his previous request on my talk page, which was not in dispute so I don't consider myself involved, just informed. Looking at the number of intersects  makes the case for abuse quite clear.  I will be happy to entertain any arguments why all socks and master shouldn't be indef blocked, but I would recommend making the arguments very quickly. -  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  21:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For starters, it appears that and his small army of socks is ❌ to SqueakBox. That said, the following are ✅ socks of :
 * As such, I have blocked all three. I will leave the decision to block the master up to another administrator. That said, I would support blocking. Additionally, while running checks I did come across a possible SqueakBox sock, that of . While they are technically ✅, I want to stress that a thorough review of their contributions should be made before they are blocked (if blocked at all). Tiptoety  talk 17:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * SympatheticIsolation is not a SqueakBox sock as their is no coinciding of edits, ie SqueakBox stopped and SympatheticIsolation started, end of story. Why? Because of pro pedophiles trolling around Fox News. None of these other accounts mentioned have any connection to SqueakBox. I havent edited peophile articles in yrs. Why should I be blocked for stopping editing as SqueakBox given the Fox News trolling, I have a right to not be trolled by these people for doing hard workl on wikipedia. See Clean start. This whole page strikes me as likely to be trolling by the same people who trolled SqueakBox via Fox News. It was my intention to request SqueakBox's edits be tranferred into my name. So let me make it clear that this is SympatheticIsolation's last edit, when i edit again I will one inform one admin of my new name, and eventually try to get my edits integrated. Truly disgusted. SympatheticIsolation (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As such, I have blocked all three. I will leave the decision to block the master up to another administrator. That said, I would support blocking. Additionally, while running checks I did come across a possible SqueakBox sock, that of . While they are technically ✅, I want to stress that a thorough review of their contributions should be made before they are blocked (if blocked at all). Tiptoety  talk 17:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * SympatheticIsolation is not a SqueakBox sock as their is no coinciding of edits, ie SqueakBox stopped and SympatheticIsolation started, end of story. Why? Because of pro pedophiles trolling around Fox News. None of these other accounts mentioned have any connection to SqueakBox. I havent edited peophile articles in yrs. Why should I be blocked for stopping editing as SqueakBox given the Fox News trolling, I have a right to not be trolled by these people for doing hard workl on wikipedia. See Clean start. This whole page strikes me as likely to be trolling by the same people who trolled SqueakBox via Fox News. It was my intention to request SqueakBox's edits be tranferred into my name. So let me make it clear that this is SympatheticIsolation's last edit, when i edit again I will one inform one admin of my new name, and eventually try to get my edits integrated. Truly disgusted. SympatheticIsolation (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * SympatheticIsolation is not a SqueakBox sock as their is no coinciding of edits, ie SqueakBox stopped and SympatheticIsolation started, end of story. Why? Because of pro pedophiles trolling around Fox News. None of these other accounts mentioned have any connection to SqueakBox. I havent edited peophile articles in yrs. Why should I be blocked for stopping editing as SqueakBox given the Fox News trolling, I have a right to not be trolled by these people for doing hard workl on wikipedia. See Clean start. This whole page strikes me as likely to be trolling by the same people who trolled SqueakBox via Fox News. It was my intention to request SqueakBox's edits be tranferred into my name. So let me make it clear that this is SympatheticIsolation's last edit, when i edit again I will one inform one admin of my new name, and eventually try to get my edits integrated. Truly disgusted. SympatheticIsolation (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * At this point, Squeakbox is no longer a concern for the purpose of this SPI. I'm currently debating what to do with the master at this moment. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  00:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have indef blocked the master, RJR here. There is enough evidence here to show he has used multiple accounts abusively, even as far as admitting it was for the purpose of "joke vandalism" and other improper uses.  He did not admit the socks until the 11th hour, when he already knew he would be discovered.  There is also a general sense of cluelessness that leads me to believe that this user would continue to use multiple accounts in an abusive manner as they don't seem to have any sense of genuine remorse for their actions, but only regret they were caught.  I have tried to find any excuse, any reason to not block them for an indefinite period of time and I was not able to.  The net contributions are far outweighed by the abuse here.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  00:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

15 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User showed up on an article RJR3333 was working on shortly after RJR3333 was blocked, and did a series of minor edits on another article to get the account autoconfirmed. The user also has an odd familiarity with formatting and knowledge of accounts previously in conflict with RJR3333 — Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 23:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Here the editor seems to accept the accusation that he is a a sockpuppet of USER:RJR3333. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here threatening continuing sockpuppetry. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
All registered accounts are ✅, and Nastassja Kinski has been full-protected for 3 days. --MuZemike 03:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that I am currently keeping the Roman Polanski article at semi-protection, but I am considering full-protection of that, as well. --MuZemike 04:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

18 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Flyer22 has notified me to the existence of this other possible account on my talk page but is not sure how to start up an SPI case. This account became active shortly after the previously discovered socks were blocked. It seems he has a dynamic IP that will have to be range blocked. — Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 18:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I thank Ryulong for taking the initiative and starting another case against this user. It's not that I didn't know how to start a case, but I was conflicted about going about it and unsure about the range-blocking aspect. See this explanation on Ryulong's talk page for why I'm not interested in reporting this user all the time.

As I stated to Ryulong, this user has demonstrated that he will not stop sockpuppeting. Even though he also says, in that link, that he will accept the WP:OFFER, it would appear that it is too late for that. Unless the offer was to take effect at the start of August, the condition was that he not sockpuppet from the time the offer was made. Not only did he not abide by that offer (assuming that it was effective immediately), he (today) continued to sockpuppet just three hours after saying that he guesses he "should just wait six months." And for a user who claims that he'd rather stay away from me, it then makes no sense that he would show up at the Asexuality article. An article I have heavily edited, and I am quite certain that he knows that. Even showing back up at the To Catch a Predator article was obviously a dumb decision. Besides range-blocking, I don't see how this user can be stopped...other than consistently blocking him and full-protecting all the articles he is interested in editing, which wouldn't be fair to others interested in editing those articles. Range-blocking may affect some people interested in editing Wikipedia, but I believe that it will affect significantly less people and that it is obviously more efficient in taking care of this user. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you range block me I'll just use someone else's computer and edit in a different topic area and make sure you haven't edited the articles I do...you won't know who's me and who isn't, since I'm not committing vandalism anymore you would do well to just leave me alone and stop trying to get me banned. --TheWeatherman39 (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious sock is blocked, but I guess he's asking us for a rangeblock now. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly, per above and since he's popped back up yet again...this time as Lucifergavemeag. And, RJR3333, getting another's computer won't help unless you are in a different location. And even then, you are likely going to be in the same country/city and not very far from your residence, and a close connection will still be determined. There will be that and your behavior. And spare us your claims of having changed. I doubt that you won't ever be committing vandalism here anymore, just as I doubt that you will/can ever stop sockpuppeting. No one is trying to get you banned. You are indefinitely blocked, what some editors already refer to as banned. I made clear above that I am not looking to report you every time I spot you and that I won't be doing that unless your editing is so disruptive that it calls for it. But you are the one choosing to show up and edit in a way that makes it obvious who you are. Even if you weren't so very obvious, I'd still know who you are. I know the way that you edit and I know that you sometimes intentionally seek a confrontation with me, such as increasing the likelihood of that by editing the Asexuality article. If a "new editor" pops up to suddenly comment negatively on my work, for example, I'm going to know that it's you. Not only by that fact, but by the way that you type and edit, such as how you needlessly indent a few spaces away when replying, and how I'm often correcting that or your lack of indenting. You do these things more than any other editor I've come across on Wikipedia. And your logic, the way you carry yourself (for example, needing to ask others if your edits are okay, almost as though you are a child seeking approval or one who fears being reprimanded), is very peculiar and therefore obviously identifiable. You won't fool me, even if you think you have by the fact that I've ignored you. Flyer22 (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your silly rangeblock is not going to help because I'm in a completely different location from where the original ip you blocked was. And even within my city there is no similarity whatsoever between many of the ip addresses there, I can just visit other people's homes, etc., to take care of it. I have not sought any confrontation with you. I've edited wikipedia about Rhodes's asexuality before, when I was nineteen I think. And I think the first article I edited under an actual account here was the one about the woman who stalked Rhodes and I knew Rhodes was said to be homosexual or asexual. So being interested in adding that to the article had nothing to do with you. Personally I do not think it is possible to be asexual, so a sourced addition of Rhodes to the list is no more absurd than all the other people mentioned. But I really do wish I hadn't done the trolling and vandalism, it was stupid and enabled you to attack me and was very regrettable. --Lucifergavemeag (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See that? I had to fix your indenting again. And, yes, the rangeblock will help. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so worried about it. And I've already explained about how not being in the exact location isn't going to help you much (not unless you are in a different city and/or country), especially considering your WP:DUCK behavior and other behavior I know so well. See how easy it was for me to know that Lucifergavemeag is you, for example? And don't try convincing me that your showing up at the Asexuality article was a coincidence; it wasn't. Flyer22 (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The obvious sock has been blocked. Don't engage him. WP:RBI. AniMate 08:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * bordering ✅ that the two users above are related to the archive, plus:

-- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  14:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked trio of new socks indef. Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  15:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

27 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This is for documentation only. Please see evidence at Special:PermaLink/644439277. Tiptoety talk 21:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is . The four socks listed above are ✅ as being operated by the same person. The behavioral evidence outlined in the link above suggests that RJR3333 and the four confirmed socks are one and the same and have all been blocked. Tiptoety  talk 21:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

04 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Well, the name, for one thing. Consistent with history of vendetta edits against Flyer22. Editor is picking up right where blocked troll Flyer1552 left off. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * User is blocked and tagged. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

20 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

No evidence submitted Bishonen &#124; talk 13:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I'm listing these socks for completeness, no action is required as they're all already checkusered and tagged. See and. Man, this template is mystifying. I tried to put my comment above, but it wouldn't take. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC).