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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
evidence
Line 42: Line 42:


:::And I hear you are saying you will not provide diffs, and that is not something that sits well with most admins for the obvious reason that they would then have to prove your OR thesis re my and Pol's edits for themmselves, analysing diffs to try and prove a hypothesis when it isn't quite clear what that hypothesis anyway. If the best you can do is accuse me of lying re my inability to change my IP address and then refuse to offer the diffs I asked for re your acusation that Pol64 and I were co-ordinating the timing of our edits, well it doesn't sound like more than suspicion to me, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 21:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
:::And I hear you are saying you will not provide diffs, and that is not something that sits well with most admins for the obvious reason that they would then have to prove your OR thesis re my and Pol's edits for themmselves, analysing diffs to try and prove a hypothesis when it isn't quite clear what that hypothesis anyway. If the best you can do is accuse me of lying re my inability to change my IP address and then refuse to offer the diffs I asked for re your acusation that Pol64 and I were co-ordinating the timing of our edits, well it doesn't sound like more than suspicion to me, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 21:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

::::Hmmm. On the other hand, you might really be ignorant of why your ISP does not necessarily determine your IP. In that case, I need not inform you.

::::I will not at all refuse to provide diffs, if required. But as I have explained umpteen times, that would hide, as opposed to reveal the killer evidence. I have also never accused you of lying, or co-ordinating. In fact, it seems as if a lack of co-ordination will expose you as the puppet-master, here. [[User:82.45.15.121|82.45.15.121]] 22:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


*'''Evidence'''. In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=prev&oldid=158513329 this edit] Pol64 seems to admit to being the anon account 86.156.210.130 editing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=158388449&oldid=158387468 here] but that does not make 86.156.210.130 a sock of Pol64, he says in the diff provided that he forgot to sign in, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Evidence'''. In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=prev&oldid=158513329 this edit] Pol64 seems to admit to being the anon account 86.156.210.130 editing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=158388449&oldid=158387468 here] but that does not make 86.156.210.130 a sock of Pol64, he says in the diff provided that he forgot to sign in, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:32, 27 September 2007

SqueakBox

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 27 September 2007
  • Code letter: F.

This is a clear case of sockpuppetry, that needs checking and confirming. After the 48 hour block given to SqueakBox, Pol64 turned up on Pro-pedophile activism in much the same style that he has previously (on many occasions) to cover his puppetmaster (and previously sanctioned puppeteer) for 3RR violations. From the contribs of both users, it can be seen that both edit in a similar fashion, to similar ends on similar articles, making similar spelling mistakes (i.e. keying errors), similar punctuation ommissions and supporting each other. Whilst SqueakBox is openly in favour of Perverted-Justice's way of thinking (indeed, he was inspired to edit here after seeing a television interview with the now banned user:XavierVE), Pol64 describes himself as an anti-pedophile activist. Both users also have habits of accusing others of being pedophiles or sympathisers thereof, edit warring, engaging in generally disruptive behaviour and exhibiting levels of cognitive distortion such that they cannot see an argument from any other position barring their own.

Even more solid evidence reveals itself, when one overlays the contribution times of both editors (starting with those of the lesser used SPA, Pol64, and referring back to SB's). It appears that both users are logged in at similar times, making reels of edits that anneal perfectly to the end of each other, but never overlap or occur at exactly the same time. It looks as if SqueakBox has been quite careless in masking his sockpuppet's true owner, in this sense.

I include the bare IP in this new request, because as described here a lapse in concentration revealed that it was being used as a 3RR evasion sock account of SqueakBox's suspected sock. It may be the IP of both Pol64 and SB. Again, this behaviour is very similar to that which lead to SqueakBox's recent block. 82.45.15.121 18:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been confirmed as sock of now banned user Mike D78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am in Latin America whereas the IP address is in London and I have no sockpuppets whatsoever. This is his overactive imagination. I also npte that I was unable to edit this morning but Pol64 was editing. How is this? SqueakBox 18:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false accusation which is typical of the user in question. There is currently no sanction against me, and I began editing on the articles concerned well before Mike was banned. 82.45.15.121 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here and here, SqueakBox 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course Mike has been sanctioned, and you have been cleared (despite the violation). What does this say about me being banned as one of his sockpuppets? Quite clearly, I am alive and kicking. 82.45.15.121 19:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt a debate but a checkuser page. Diffs to back up your more extraordinary conclusions around timing patterns between Pol64 and myself would be useful. It may be that I am lying about being In Latin America and that I am actually in London, or was a few days back when this IP made its edits to the ped articles so i am want to say that CU will confiorm which side of the Atlantic I am on, and indeed that I have never edited wikiepdia outside the city in which I live. I have no idea who Pol64 is but the only evidence I see being offered is that he agrees with me broadly speaking re contentious pedophile issues, and this would be like me coming and saying I think all those who oppose me and agree with a broadly pro PPA POV are in fact the same person simply because they agree on certain issues, SqueakBox 19:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the facade! Providing diffs (as opposed to contrib list links) for the edit time evidence would hide the evidence, and thus work in your favour. The evidence being, of course, that your sock's blocks of editing and login times fall perfectly in between your own and do not overlap in a way that would remotely suggest no sockpuppet or extremely advanced puppeteering. The evidence is in the links provided, but I will comply with any requests upcoming, regardless. 82.45.15.121 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that CU was declined on the exact same accusation 3 or 4 days ago on this very page [1]., SqueakBox 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, false. The complainant raised less points, before the case had escalated to the possibility of block evasion. Most importantly, I have pointed to the perfect congruence between your and Pol64's contribution times; strings of edits that do not overlap, but tag on to the end of each other like railway locomotives. 82.45.15.121 19:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have made certain allegations but without any diffs to back them up. I would like to see said diffs because I haven't a clue what you are on about, SqueakBox 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs are not required for the final evidence. One need only open up your contribs and overlay Pol64's onto your own (links provided). They fit like a hand and glove (or a hand and sock, ha-ha). That you would contest this is utterly comical. If more evidence is required for the similarities of character, I will be more than willing to oblige! 82.45.15.121 19:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just picked up on this quote from earlier: "I also npte that I was unable to edit this morning but Pol64 was editing". The answer is that the account was blocked, and not the IP, or that you simply selected a new IP that can or can not be linked to the previous one. If it can not, there is still adequate evidence to prove that you are a sockpuppet. The only concern, is that too many people see your disruptive behaviour as virtuous, and would be unwilling to act against you. 82.45.15.121 19:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't change my IP as it happens, or not without going to the ISP, its a static one, and your assumption assumes Pol64 is also editing from this very small ISP (1000 customers). I see you still haven't brought the diffs re timing to the table, but having looked briefly at the timing of Pol64's edits I still have no idea what you are talking about with that one, SqueakBox 21:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, drop the facade. Of course you can change your IP. This has nothing to do with the ISP at all. As already mentioned, providing diff links would not properly expose the suspect nature of your editing patterns, as it would totally destroy any perception of the context in which the edits were made. With diff links, one could argue that I am simply evading certain links to frame you. Thankfully, the two contribution logs that incriminate you are available at the top of the page. And if an admin requires more evidence, bring it on. 82.45.15.121 21:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, can you please stop the bad faith comments. I cannot change my IP address, and particularly not at the drop of a hat as I am on a static IP with no dial-up back-up (no landline phone) and your accusations of me lying on this issue do not sit well with me. Or what? You know more about my ISP than I do? Do tyou even know in which ciy I am located (my user page indicates the country I am in).
And I hear you are saying you will not provide diffs, and that is not something that sits well with most admins for the obvious reason that they would then have to prove your OR thesis re my and Pol's edits for themmselves, analysing diffs to try and prove a hypothesis when it isn't quite clear what that hypothesis anyway. If the best you can do is accuse me of lying re my inability to change my IP address and then refuse to offer the diffs I asked for re your acusation that Pol64 and I were co-ordinating the timing of our edits, well it doesn't sound like more than suspicion to me, SqueakBox 21:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. On the other hand, you might really be ignorant of why your ISP does not necessarily determine your IP. In that case, I need not inform you.
I will not at all refuse to provide diffs, if required. But as I have explained umpteen times, that would hide, as opposed to reveal the killer evidence. I have also never accused you of lying, or co-ordinating. In fact, it seems as if a lack of co-ordination will expose you as the puppet-master, here. 82.45.15.121 22:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence. In this edit Pol64 seems to admit to being the anon account 86.156.210.130 editing here but that does not make 86.156.210.130 a sock of Pol64, he says in the diff provided that he forgot to sign in, SqueakBox 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ecx3)*Note - SqueakBox was recently unblocked because his reverts were of a banned user. The checkuser may wish to take this into account, as the filer of this report has no other edits. The Evil Spartan 18:50, 27 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

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 22 September 2007
  • Code letter: E.
  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=159285403&oldid=159283505
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=159473252&oldid=159314544
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=159476218&oldid=159475757
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=159482662&oldid=159481092
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=159505635&oldid=159502818

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]

Just curious? fish 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]

SqueakBox

  • 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.

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]

Red X 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

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]

Red X Unrelated Mackensen (talk) 19:08, 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SqueakBox&oldid=160792678"