User talk:RJII

Welcome!

Hello RJII, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 06:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

A question

Whose drunk girlfriend made this edit? The Ungovernable Force 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, where is the Jewish part of your edits? None of your editing I've seen has had anything to do with Jewish related topics. The Ungovernable Force 07:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What we did has nothing to do with being Jewish. We just happen to be Jews, so it was a convenient username for our effort. We're Jews (our benefactors, and editors (with the exception of one assistant editor)) who injected our intelligence into the Wikipedia system into the specific areas we were concerned with, building a latticework that will further our own interests in the real world. What those interests are has nothing to do with being Jewish (apart from our inherited intelligence and cultural values, perhaps). We just happen to be Jews. That's all. RJII is not the name of the underlying organization. (I don't think we were planning on revealing what RJII stood for, in order to prevent any confusion, but one of the editors promised otherwise several months ago, so we had to make good on that). RJII 07:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. The Ungovernable Force 07:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So what's next then?

Well, after a year the www.RJII.com website's still empty. What's the business you're moving into? I would be genuinely interested to know what the parameters of your experiment were, and what the results were, and how you went about rigorously following methodology. while I broadly agreed with those of your positions I encountered, it didn't look dispassionate experimental behaviour to me - User:RJII came across as just as garulous, single minded, and somwhat-lost-the-perspective an editor as any of the rest of us here). I don't notice much evidence of multiple editor personalities, nor of any systematic experiment per se (though I grant you this might not be apparent from a third person perspective). that said, it you have truly done that, then I think it is an interesting thing, and I'd be interested in the results. But this could, after all, just be a collossal bluff, right? And why peg yourself(ves) as "Radical Jewish"? As TUF says, there was no apparent Jewish focus, let alone slant or bias, in your edits. So isn't identifying yourself in that way somewhat provocative to the "there's a zionist conspiracy" element? ElectricRay 09:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So you're a Political Soldier eh? Charming. --maxrspct in the mud 19:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

We're simply not afraid to say out in the open that we're Jewish. Like we said, it was simply a convinient username that represented almost all of us (I, as part time editor, am the only one who isn't Jewish by the way). Any suspicions of an evil Jewish project are founded upon a more fundamental irrational hatred of Jews. Sure, almost all of us are Jewish and we have a "Project" but so what? That doesn't mean what we're doing is evil. If anyone wants to think it's a Jewish conspiracy, I suppose that's fine. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with Jewish conspiracies. A conspiracy to do what? To cause the expansion of global capitalism so that we can exploit the struggling masses? Take over the world? What would that mean, even? Get over it. (Not directed at you, Electric Ray, but for anyone that wants to think "there's a zionist conspiracy." RJII 20:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. NOT A JEWISH CONSPIRACY BUT A PLATFORM TO MAKE IT LOOK AS IF THERE IS ONE. A false flag operation. I am definitely not saying it's a Jewish conspiracy (I couldn't care less about your origin or whatever).. but that you are trying to engineer anti-semitism on wikipedia by this 'jews in the office business'... to try and make it LOOK like there's a jewish conspiracy - the other way around RJ!!! It was you who started talking about ethnicity first. --maxrspct in the mud 23:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I know where you're coming from, but like The Ungovernable Force says, it still seems needlessly to court a reaction from the "zionist conspiracy" crowd, and I can't see the point in doing that - unless you're trying to provoke a reaction?. Also, what is there for the skeptical folks like me who would like to know more about the "experiment"? Are you going to publish it? ElectricRay 22:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there is also concern you are trying to provoke concerns for a zionist conspiracy by labelling your project Jewish. The Ungovernable Force 20:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, there's a Jewish conspiracy then if that's one wants to think. So what? That doesn't mean there's anything evil about it. Let the foolish conspiracy theorists waste their time with such nonsense. RJII 20:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is a credibility one. If you're a credible evolutionary biologist speaking plenty of sense, why call your organisation the "L Ron Hubbard Institute of Research"? People tend to judge books by their covers. ElectricRay 22:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think credibility is of any concern. It's not like anyone is ever going to hear from the "Radical Jewish Intelligence Initiative" ever again. It was just a cute username we made up from off the top of our heads, not the name of the underlying organization (which itself is obscure and has no publicized name). We don't care about the credibility of "RJII" now that the Project is over. The content we contributed to Wikipedia is all that matters now. RJII 08:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, I talked to one of the editors through email a few months ago - would that editor be fine with me sending one last email? There is a question I am burning to ask... (it's just a piece of information I would like to know) -- Nikodemos 22:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they've been blocked for all time into the hereafter, so it's the only chance you've got, I think. ElectricRay 22:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for using a shared account, per your own admission. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is this rule? This account is not being shared by individuals at different locations. It's being used at one location by people who happen to be in the same room all from the same IP. RJII 20:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The block is under review by the admin community as we speak. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. RJII 20:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If you see the AN page, the admin admits to not knowing for sure if it's a rule. I think they should have probably asked on AN before blocking. I think you 4 having 1 account is better than having 4 accounts. That's just me. The Ungovernable Force 20:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Pardon the above user's misinterpretation of my comments, but it is a rule, (several actually; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:RJII). The general consensus so far is that the block is valid. Good day. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a general consensus about officious behaviour, too, Jeffrey. ElectricRay 21:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

RJII User Comment

Reinstated removed text from RJII's main page. I think this is useful and informative, and to the extent it was removed as the text of a blocked user, I am adopting it as my own. ElectricRay 22:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to do the same thing. I am extremely curious to find out what lies behind those "CENSORED" labels. So I would very much like RJII to get a chance to finish his/their statement. -- Nikodemos 22:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the "reinstated" text

Hello there, ElectricRay, acting with unerring inappropriateness as usual, I see. I have removed the text you reinstated. This is what WP:BAN says abouot "adopting" the text of a banned user:

Because we discourage people from using Wikipedia to interact with banned users, it is likewise inappropriate to post comments and discussion on behalf of banned users. Such activity is sometimes called "proxying". As people respond to such material, this will inevitably draw in the banned user, and again may tempt them to subvert their ban. Our aim is to make it as easy as possible for banned users to leave Wikipedia with their dignity intact, whether permanently, or for the duration of their ban. Offering to proxy is likewise inappropriate.
Bishonen | talk 02:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC).

As noted above, I am simply curious to see the last pieces of the puzzle - the ones RJII has not revealed yet. I was also under the impression that banned users can still edit their talk pages... -- Nikodemos 03:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Profit&Loss.jpeg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Profit&Loss.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

cesarb 02:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That's from Freefoto.com. I believe they allow anyone to use the pictures for non-commercial use, as long as they provide a link to the site (the link is on the article page where the photo is). Same for the picture below. RJII 06:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As I explained in the Wikipedia:Copyright problems subpage, [1] says they allow it for personal noncommercial use only ("if you are a private individual and your use is not commercial"), which does not apply to Wikipedia (the clause is an AND, not an OR). --cesarb 15:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a lot of private individuals and the use isn't commercial. RJII 19:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Wikipedia is a site run by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit. While IANAL, I cannot see how it can be considered just "a lot of private individuals" WRT copyright laws. --cesarb 22:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not worth arguing over. It's not like I care whether it's deleted or not. RJII 03:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Egger.JPG

An image that you uploaded, Image:Egger.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

cesarb 03:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Question to Adminstrators about the block

Since three people were editing through this account from the same office (it's only one user now...me, an assistant editor. the others are packing up and moving their stuff out of the building and I'll be leaving shortly with them for the Vinyard), is it OK if we edit from our respective personal home accounts? I'm not sure I understand. Is the block on all three of the editors personally, or is the block simply on editing through the RJII account? It seems bizarre that all three would be banned for life from editing Wikipedia from their own household ISP. Please explain so that I, for one, can avoid breaking any mores rules that I don't know about. And, I'll let the others know as well. Thanks. RJII 06:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd assume it's a ban on this account, that was used by multiple people. I don't think you would be blocked because you at one point edited on this account, and as long as you don't use the same IP, I don't think you could be blocked, how whould anyone know? Crazynas 07:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I would think, but it's confusing because the tag says "This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia". What user? Which user? Maybe it's the wrong tag to put on the user page. RJII 07:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The user refers to the account, not the person (I think). In any case, if they can't inforce it, even if they would, it's a moot point isn't it? Crazynas 08:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The block log says the block reason is for being a shared account; as long as they do not edit from a shared account, this block doesn't apply to them. However, other things, including all ArbCom decisions relative to this account, would still apply to all the users who were behind it (since, unless explicitly stated otherwise, ArbCom decisions are binding to the user, not to the account). --cesarb 15:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry: if you come back under another account, then I will make sure your block is extended to it. The ultimate reason for the block is your behavior, and that's not going to change any, is it? Al 02:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Anybody who behaves in the same manner as RJII, who claims to have been a group of different editors, may on reasonable suspicion supported by a consensus of editors, or by other means, be treated under RJII's arbitration remedies. Continuously. --Tony Sidaway

Proudhon

hello, sorry if I'm late. No you shouldn't traduce "libertaire" by "libertarian", "libertaires" (nowadays) are against restriction-free weapons, they hate free market and competition, they favour gay marriage, depenalization of drugs and call fascism every idea too complicated. In France, "libertaires" are leftists. They are liberal on social issues only. They sometimes say they dislike the state but what they always attack is capitalism. It is more a posture than a sophisticated political thinking.

On the other hand, "liberals" in France are criticized for being rightist and it is true that they only talk about economic freedom. Liberals refers to advocates of free-market regardless their opinion on social issues.

The translation you are asking for is hard and vain but I think that, with my indications, you will catch the point. (from my page with a little change) Apollon 22:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Revealing some missing text from the RJII Project departure statement

"...advanced techniques of psychological warfare, including intimidation, and game theory. However, most importantly, most of our edits were not done through the RJII account but through multiple "sockpuppets" (from a seperate IP(s) for increased security against detection). 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). Additionally, the RJII account served to engage in petty edit wars which were of no important consequence one way or the other and cause distractions. This was particularly effective against naturally competitive individuals, as instead of realizing that the issues they were quibling over were unimportant they "edit-warred" out of a primal motivation to achieve superiority over another individual who they detested as well as to prevent harm to their own fragile egos. In the meantime, the "sockpuppets," who evinced a somewhat amiable personality did not engage in personal attacks and other such disagreeable behavior that may have risked blocks by adminstrators, went about editing the encyclopedia. Some may have wondered why that since the RJII account was under "probation," that the individual under "RJII" did not simply switch to another username. That we did not do so was a strategic move. Any other user, with common sense, that was under such a probation would simply have changed to another username long ago, and no other editors would have ever known that the individual behind that account was under probation (there would be no risk of the threatened "one year" block for violating probation). Not only the fact that such a user was allowed to remain on Wikipedia without a block, but the fact that the RJII account was under probation continued to engage in agressive and ruthless behavior further inflamed particular editors (fortunately). Of course the probation was not planned but it was a pleasant surprise that worked in our favor. We took advantage of it, fully, which required in some cases, manipulation of administrators and arbitrators. This was fairly simple to do as these are some of the least intelligent users on Wikipedia; for many of them, this is why they choose to focus on administrative duties. Moreover, editors who seek to become adminstrators are naturally of a lower intelligence. They become administrators either to boost their own self-esteem or because they feel intellectually inferior to others or they are not competent enough to use strategy and pursuasion to get their own POV into articles. Very few administrators have more rational motivations (a select few do. We will not announce their names, in order to protect them). Though we engaged in extensive use of sockpuppets, this is not to say that the RJII account did not insert valuable information into the encyclopedia, because it did. However, what is important about that information is that it is produced broad concepts that will never be erased from the encylopedia, but more importantly from the minds of Wikipedia editors. We have also seen productive intellectual conflicts we caused spilling into other forums outside Wikipedia. And, witness this: one administrator happened upon an 8th grade Social Studies fair at the local mall. One of these projects had an essay attached. He read it, and much to his surprise a few sentences were lifted directly from our edits here. And, in the student's conclusionary statements he adopted the same, politically incorrect radical, "POV" as the Project (a POV is either correct or it is false). Our editor could not have been more proud. We are overcoming the influence of their brainwashed teachers and flawed POV textbooks. We are already building our intelligence into young minds! The edits under RJII have already been built upon by other editors --not in identical form but springing from the original concepts which were fundamentally sound. As a result, one cannot simply go back and delete RJII edits unless they were very recent (our sockpuppets will not be reverting any deletions of these edits in order to avoid detection) --because the original "RJII" edits simply do not exist but the concepts do continue to exist and will forever. But again, most of our must crucial edits were from the sockpuppet accounts (we would not be so foolish as to use a single account). Without the RJII Project the knowledge introduced may have not been integrated into the system for even another decade. We stand proud of our accomplishment. What we accomplished could not have been accomplished by playing nice and obeying the "rules" --it would have happened naturally if were not involved but only through a long natural of process of the society, as a whole, gradually becoming more intelligent (unless someone else were to do what we did in the near future). We are a catalyst for engineering the human mind to have a firmer grasp on reality. We have been a service to all of humanity. It is safe now for us to divulge that some of the sockpuppets will continue editing Wikipedia until at least the end of the year." RJII 03:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The final item of information, concerning the ultimate goal of the Project, will be released by the end of the month. RJII 03:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)