Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SqueakBox: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:00, 24 September 2007

SqueakBox

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 22 September 2007

SqueakBox (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Pol64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Code letter: E.

Just curious: Roman Czyborra 02:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or paranoid? It's always Brits that are coming to help SqueakBox. It could be that SqueakBox has access to a British proxy IP unrelated to his Honduras ISP. So please also check for a match between Pol64 and Greatgallsoffire and Pura Paja and Skanking. Roman Czyborra 06:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greatgallsoffire (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Pura Paja (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Skanking (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Just curious?

CheckUser is not for fishing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider. Just curious was an understatement. The reverts have been quite disruptive and it would help to get them stopped by 3RR editor block. The way Pol64 jumped in in August looks as if he already knew his way around and SqueakBox immediately welcomed him. Pol64's editing style and typing errors resemble that of SqueakBox. Mike D78 also uttered the suspicion Pol64 is a sockpuppet in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=159540434&oldid=159514490 Why is this fishing? This page left me with the impression that 3RR enforcement was an acceptable checkuser reason but I have requested clarification on Template talk:Fishing. Roman Czyborra 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fishing template probably isn't the right place to seek clarification :) (but I answered there anyway) My interpretation of policy is that if there is reversion, and it's disruptive, block the various parties edit warring as appropriate. You don't have to wait for 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. You say they're "quite disruptive" so get an uninvolved admin to take a look. CU isn't needed for every case of disruption. It's a privacy invading thing and should only be used when really needed. Note that Squeakbox and GreatGalls were already checked the result was "unrelated". I'm not Jpgordon but I probably would have declined this at this point as well unless something more compelling was brought up. Note that reverting to the same version as another person does is not necessarily a strong argument that it's a sock doing it. Also note that there is discussion ongoing on the talk page. ++Lar: t/c 01:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SqueakBox}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).

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

SqueakBox (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Greatgallsoffire (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Code letter: E.

Users only edits are reverting the Gary Glitter to a version against goes against clear consensus on the talkpage. The same version SqueakBox has been reverting to.

1st revert: 01:35, 23 March 2007
2nd revert: 06:54, 23 March 200
3rd revert: 08:06, 23 March 2007
4th revert: 08:44, 23 March 2007
5th revert: 09:25, 23 March 2007

DXRAW 21:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome a checkuser on this case. I live in Latin America and use a small ISP and think it unlikely that Greatgallsoffire (who says he or she is a British IT worker) is located anywhere near where I am. He or she has nothing to do with me, SqueakBox 18:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated. Dmcdevit·t 21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply.DXRAW 03:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A thanks from me too, SqueakBox 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SqueakBox

SqueakBox (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Pura Paja (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Users only edits are semi-vandalism, and only related to articles that SqueakBox is banned from editing, per ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas. I have already blocked another sock of SqueakBox, User:Skanking, so the user has used sockpuppets in the past. Created this because of a second suspected sock puppet case at Wikipedia:suspected sock puppets/SqueakBox (2nd). Thanks, Iolakana|^T 16:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fast reply :-) Iolakana|^T 10:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 Please reconsider.  Just curious was an understatement.  The reverts have been quite disruptive and it would help to get them stopped by 3RR editor block. The way Pol64 jumped in in August looks as if he already knew his way around and SqueakBox immediately welcomed him.  Pol64's editing style and typing errors resemble that of SqueakBox. Mike D78 also uttered the suspicion Pol64 is a sockpuppet in
 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=159540434&oldid=159514490  Why is this fishing?  This page left me with the impression that 3RR enforcement was an acceptable checkuser reason but I have requested clarification on [[Template talk:Fishing]]. [[User:Roman Czyborra|Roman Czyborra]] 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
+:The Fishing template probably isn't the right place to seek clarification :) (but I answered there anyway) My interpretation of policy is that if there is reversion, and it's disruptive, block the various parties edit warring as appropriate. You don't have to wait for 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. You say they're "quite disruptive" so get an uninvolved admin to take a look. CU isn't needed for every case of disruption. It's a privacy invading thing and should only be used when really needed. Note that Squeakbox and GreatGalls were already checked the result was "unrelated". I'm not Jpgordon but I probably would have declined this at this point as well unless something more compelling was brought up. Note that reverting to the same version as another person does is not necessarily a strong argument that it's a sock doing it. Also note that there is discussion ongoing on the talk page. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 01:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 <!--