Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJ CG/Archive

Report date April 2 2010, 16:07 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

RJ CG was a disruptive user who engaged in sock puppetry and used Wikipedia to advocate pro-Soviet POV. He was based in Canada, as is this IP. RJ CG represented views critical of the Baltic states, as does this IP (e.g. claiming Red Terror on the Amber Coast is a propaganda film (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Terror_on_the_Amber_Coast&diff=353474537&oldid=353474427), furthermore, the IP is using the political extremist Viktor Alksnis as a source etc.) Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 16:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! )

Also, 206.186.8.130 is an IP address that has been confirmed as RJ CG's, an address that has become active again during recent times. See also Requests for checkuser/Case/RJ CG. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 16:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I have never been and have no desire to become a registered Wikipedia user.

I am not exactly sure what it is that you are accusing me of. In regard to your particular accusations, for the Red Terror on the Amber Coast article I used the reversal criteria - a Communist film about Catholicism would clearly be propaganda. I don't see why the reverse (a film by Catholic priests about Communism) would not be true. For the Vladimir Antyufeyev article, Alksnis is a primary source (being one of the participants) for the actions of Antyufeyev in Latvia. I don't even see how my edits to that article can be construed as "critical of the Baltic states," and even if they were, exactly how that would violate any Wikipedia policies (unless "being uncritical of the Baltic states" is now a Wikipedia policy). If you feel my edits violate NPOV, feel free to contribute your input to the articles.

Apparently being Canadian and making any edits that are disagreeable to a small clique of Wikipedia regulars interested in the Baltics is enough to get accused of being RJ CG's sockpuppet. This has happened to an article I worked on before: User talk:Sander Säde

174.89.242.109 (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

The IP is from a different place in Canada as opposed to the other IPs involved. –MuZemike 20:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

It doesn't seem likely to me. The articles and style are different, and I don't see the same slant. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 23:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

05 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

First IP address is known to belong to RJ_CG. Second IP quickly came from the same location to restore changes made by the first IP, and regretfully, was supported by User:Paul Siebert. I am not telling that Paul Siebert is also him, but some checkuser investigation may be needed. I am sure there are other IP addresses operated by RJ_CG and possibly even named accounts. I am not going to comment on the content of his edits. A banned user must not edit here. Period. Biophys (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Biophys (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Compare this edit by OstapBender1900 and this edit by IP: 206.186.8.130. Biophys (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Strangely, some of the likely socks of RJ_CG from the previous investigation by Alison (Requests for checkuser/Case/RJ CG) were blocked as socks of User:Jacob Peters (for example, this one). This can't be true, unless Jacob Peters acted through Canadian proxy server. This proxy server is currently blocked by EdJohnston (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 17:24, 5 December 2011  . However, he still can create alternative named accounts from other IP addresses (like 216.66.131.87). Biophys (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt that this user is RJ_CG who renewed his activities after a break. (1) He came from the same IP address. (2) He has the same interests and bias related to Russian/Soviet subjects and Estonia, and (3) he has the same behavior pattern. He just promised not to edit controversial subjects (text after P.S.) and immediately violated his promise by making this series of edits. He apparently decided that I did not like his removal of references to IPV News and immediately made more such removals  and reported about this to my talk page . He made irrelevant personal accusations right on this page and here (edit summary). What he does is removal of content created by other editors, but he does not admit it. That is exactly what brought RJ_CG the trouble . Biophys (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * More proofs? Both editors struggled with something they believed was "Selfpub": compare edit summaries by RG_CG and this editor. Biophys (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If he is allowed to continue, there will be more of this. Biophys (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

@HelloAnnyong. This is on your discretion of course. The sudden disappearance is not something I would expect from a well-intended newbie (as he claimed). Biophys (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

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

206.186.8.130 is a proxy server of a big Toronto-based company, used by hundreds of workstations. This is pretty evident from the editing pattern. And yes, 216.66.131.87 is also from Toronto. I have a confession to make, edits reversed by Biophys and edits of 216.66.131.87 do belong to the same person. Is it a crime? I am honestly not aware that living and working in the same metropolitan area is a violation of a Wiki-rule, as interpreted by selfpub-pushing user. If it is, I am bringing my sincerest apologies to the community for living and working in the same city and asking what should I do to be allowed to edit without being stalked by Biophys/Hodja. Biophys's remark "I am not going to comment on the content of his edits" is of specially curious nature. The "problematic" edits he reverted were 2 eliminations of the selfpub material and a correction of a honest and obvious mistake by other user (referring to 1988-published article as "work done during 1990s"). Apparently, those pieces were to Biophys's liking, even if incorrect/inadmissible, and he knows that he can't keep those materials in WP on their own merit. So he fights to keep mistakes in WP using technicalities. Is there a pattern here? 206.186.8.130 (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. In order to avoid pointless edit-warring, I'm going to abstain from future work on policitally sensitive articles using 206.186.8.130 and use my home ISP (IP is dynamic, but belongs to LOOK Communications) in the future. I have no desire to create an account, as my contributions are very infrequent. Again, sorry for the grief I brought to the community by attracting this politically-motivated attack. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think anyone would object your edits even on controversial subjects, as long as you add new content and your edits are sourced like here. It's only your last series of reverts (and the subsequent edit warring using an alternative IP) that triggered this SPI request.Biophys (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind permission for me to edit WP. Given your super-active involvement into administrative side of WP (evident from your edit history), it is valuable. However, I have to set the record straight. My edits (reverted by you) were not "reverts of content". I repeat, NOT. You are making a mistake. I removed 2 links to inadmissible source and, in cooperation with some other user, properly attributed a claim published in 1988, which you, in a heat of a battle, reverted to absurd "1990s findings". Your repeated baseless attempts to stick some kind of "destructive behaviour" charge to me are just proving your combative approach. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

P.P.S. Biophis, could you please stop your silly attempts to settle some old scores. Trying to flog a horse which had been dead for 3 years less 2 weeks (RJ_CG) or 15 months (Ostap) is not even amusing. Quick look at your editing history shows that you are politically active users in a very sensitive area and, most likely, has a lot of scores to settle using technicalities. Please leave me out of it. Thank you in advance. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you User:RJ_CG or not? I believe you are, because this has been already confirmed by checkuser, see here: Requests for checkuser/Case/RJ CG. Biophys (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No I am not User:RJ_CG. Thank you for bringing proof that User:RJ_CG was not "banned for violation" but blocked as abandoned account. See the comment in Requests for checkuser/Case/RJ CG. However, I see from the request that any IP from GTA not agreeing with very narrow set of political views are automatically accused of being "clones of the same user" by members of a group sharing those views. And I do not know how to handle this situation. Could you advice, please? 206.186.8.130 (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * RJ_CG was blocked for sockpuppetry . Now, since you tell that you are not RJ_CG, but Alison decided that you are, an additional investigation by another checkuser is probably required to resolve this issue. Biophys (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said to you, my IP is a proxy server used by hundreds (possibly thousands) of peoples from a big company. This person (RJ_CG) could have been working here at some point, hard to say. You are trying to make a zombie out of case been dead for 3 years, as well as to link persons banned 5 years ago (Peters) to it. I don't see a point in further discussion of dusty cases. Let us wait for moderators. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Sorry, it is not 5 years yet since the Jacob Peters dude was permabanned. It will be in 2 months. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you telling that you and RJ_CG edited the same subjects about Soviet Estonia  because you both work in the same "big company"? Biophys (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hodja, your gig "Prove that you are not guilty" is getting stale. Feel free to provide all the proof you consider worthy. Please do it in previous chapter. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A note regarding Biophys's accusations made 13:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC) I am not sure if I should respond to this character-assasination attempt, complete with (1)reading my mind over the internet and (2)misinterpretation of my statements. The key issue of the investigation is "can my edits be linked to an account dead for 3 years". I would like to hear from anyone in position of authority if Hoja's rants are relevant. If they are, I will respond. Until then, no.206.186.8.130 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

@HelloAnnyong: The reason for myself being quiet is spelled above. I've done the changes I considered necessary and have no desire to be subjected to very incivilized grilling by Hodja. I still see an unresolved issue in the "Forest Brothers" article, but has no time to work on it for now. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Ostap hasn't edited in a year, and both of the IPs have gone quiet. I'm closing for now with no action taken, but relist if they or other accounts become active. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)