request links:
main •
•
links •
history •
watch •
talk Filed: 17 June 2008 |
SqueakBox temporarily ceased editing on 00:29, 17 June. [1] Burrburr was created on 1:20, 17 June. [2] He temporarily ceased editing on 01:49; SB resumed at 02:42, and stopped at 02:48; Burrburr resumed at 04:23, and stopped at 05:12; and SB resumed at 14:40. Their edits never overlap.
One minute after making a null edit to Vodafone, [3] his first, Burrburr left a comment on Talk:Pederasty [4] in the Wikipedian dialect (using "POV"). [5] SqueakBox has a longstanding interest in paedophilia-related topics and has a history of editing the Pederasty article from the same "side" as Burrburr (one that promotes the view of pederasty as child abuse and unrelated to LGBT). [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Burrburr's other contributions are all minor, and appear to have been done with the intent of inflating his or her edit count. [11] I reverted several unsourced edits by Burrburr. One of these was on Ages of consent in Central America. [12] SB undid my revert to this article shortly after. [13]
Burrburr is obviously not a new user. The evidence above and the similar grammar of SB and Burrburr lead me to suspect it is a sockpuppet of SqueakBox. It is probable, however, that he is using a proxy. User:Ztep and User:Blowhardforever, two previous unproven Squeak socks, were from the same ISP and "likely the same person." BHF is included to check if this 'person' (or more likely, proxy) is back again. -- AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
request links:
main •
•
links •
history •
watch •
talk Filed: 24 May 2008 |
Added by User:SqueakBox and User:PetraSchelm:
User:Blowhardforever today appeared and reverted to User:SqueakBox's preferred version of Pro-paedophile activism. [14] The user also inserted a sock template on User:Jovin Lambton, accusing him of being the long-banned user Voice of Britain. SB has a history of these kind of accusations: At Wikipedia:Pedophile_topic_mentorship#AnotherSolipsist, he claimed I was a sock of VoB ( User:Ryan Postlethwaite cleared me of this charge). Blowhardforever has a reversion edit summary style identical to that of SB: place a grammatically poor justification for the edit behind "Undid revision ..." (compare [15] and [16])
His other edits were limited to a brief comment on Talk:Pro-pedophile activism and the repeated removal of a section critical of SqueakBox from Wikipedia talk:Administrator's noticeboard. [17] [18]
13 minutes before Blowhardforever was registered, [19] SB made this comment that he probably intends to use to prove that he couldn't have been Blowhardforever, because he was "off at the grand carnival." IMO, this is just all the more evidence that he is Blowhardforever.
Ztep is included because, despite strong circumstantial evidence indicating SqueakBox's guilt, checkuser found that their IPs traced to different countries (see the previous request). It's possible that SB has chosen the same proxy as he used for Ztep. -- AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 19:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
request links:
main •
•
links •
history •
watch •
talk Filed: 14 April 2008 |
The following were added by SqueakBox, and remain to avoid an edit war. Code letters do not apply: --AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 02:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Code letter certainly do apply, AnotherSolipsist is accused sockmaster of Ztep as well as the 3 further socks below. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
On 22 January 2007 at 23:38, SqueakBox ( talk · contribs) (who has a history of socking; see 10:37, 22 August 2006 block) was blocked for one week. [22] Approximately one day later, on 23 January 2007 at 22:08, Ztep ( talk · contribs) was created. [23] Ztep immediantly began editing articles frequented by SqueakBox, including Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia, List of Rastafarians, the talk page Joseph Hill, and a redirect to Rastafarian vocabulary (check the history for any of these articles and you'll see SqueakBox's name in abundance). He also edited ETA to delete a reference to terrorism, [24] a POV pushed by Squeak as well. [25] Ztep stopped editing on 28 January 2007 at 17:56, just as Squeak's block was about to expire. The time frame of his editing was Squeak-typical -- around 17 or 21 hours, depending on the day.
Yesterday, Ztep popped back up after a year of inactivity to join in in a revert war on Pro-paedophile activism, after SqueakBox violated 3RR. (Absolutely no one else supported SB's revision, and the protected version has since been changed back to consensus at the request of several editors and administrators [26])) He reverted the article 3 times, at which point it was protected. He also left a note on the talk page, strikingly Squeakboxian in its civilty and sense: "I have been watching for 3 days now and all you have done is told paedophiles where to abuse children,. You clearly have no conscience but you also appear to have no sense either." [27]
ThoughUnlessUntilWhether ( talk · contribs) is included on the recommendation of ThuranX, based on his inflammatory involvement in a thread concerning this and premature knowledge of lingo like "BLP." --AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 02:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well the check user will be able to judge that for themselves given that location is hjis or her speciality. You seem to have a compulsive need to troll me and your removal of yourself and your suspected socks is unacceptable, please do not remove yourself from this checkuser as IMO you are both Ztep and laceibahonduras and this needs to be checked, especially as you display identical behaviour to some of my attackers below. Please go and do some editing like I was till you rudely disturbed me with further trolling as if I havent been trolled enough in the last 24 hours. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Could we have a check on Pol64 and Ztep to see if they are on the same network. Both have behaved in exactly the same way. Lambton T/ C 17:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
request links:
main •
•
links •
history •
watch •
talk Filed: 12 November 2007 |
It is not at all a surprise to find that this is the fourth request. Patterns include frequent use of the word 'clearly', strings of adverbs, similar spelling errors (in posts by both, the letter 'p' shows up by mistake next to the letter 'o'), British spellings used on some words, and Pol64's posts showing up right after those by SqueakBox.
From talk - WP:PAW
Please be civil and don't act like a twat. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
...
Everyopne else? This is a place for everyone not everyone else. And if you wish to stop disrupting, please be my guest. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Neutrality is that pedophiles are sick people, that most of them end up committing offences, and that those whop defend such crimes are in serious need of help. Wikipedia is a noble project and to bring your hate filled spew here as if it were something to be proud of is sickening. Pol64 00:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
From Diff: user talk - Theresa Knott
The comments were clearly highly provocative and meant to be so. I thought such rude behaviour was not allowed in wikipedia? Pol64 00:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Again from Diff: talk - WP:PAW:
What is slander? CP is clearly highly abusive. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
From Diff: user talk - Theresa Knott:
Obscene and trolling comments like this one clearly need refactoring as we are not here to either promote pedophilia or troll other users and this was clearly both. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Other related diffs:
Identical post vandalism by Pol64, including accusation that I am a sex offender
Accusations of promoting pedophilia, along with calling another user a 'twat'
request links:
main •
•
links •
history •
watch •
talk Filed: 27 September 2007 |
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)
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)
See here and here, SqueakBox 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
I also note that CU was declined on the exact same accusation 3 or 4 days ago on this very page [28]., SqueakBox 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
86.156 is unquestionably my IP address, and is the IP address for everyone in my house. I live in London, as my user page mentions. I would add that 82.45 made this request minutes after I accused him of being the sockpuppet of banned users Farenhorst or Samantha Pignez here [29]. Is this not a case of petty revenge? Especially as I see this accusation was made below as well and then rejected. For the record I know nothing about SqueakBox other than what I have read on his user page nor have I ever met him or spoken to him outside wikipedia, and I have certainly never been to Honduras (which is where I assume he lives based on the flags at the bottom of his user page). I do work for an anti-paedophile organisation in the UK and admire Squeak's brave approach to this issue but really I doubt if we have much in common and the fact that I agree with his edits and disagree with those of Mike D78 or 82.45 is not surprising really. Unfortunately I have seen the damage that predatory paedophiles do in the real world and that informs my opinions which inform my edits on wikipedia. Pol64 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Rejected The lot of you need to stop, this is a place to request a check, not debate. Checks need to be succinctly worded with supporting diffs, and debates need to be held elsewhere. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
request links:
main •
•
links •
history •
watch •
talk Filed: 22 September 2007 |
Just curious: Roman Czyborra 02:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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/?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)
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)
Unrelated. Dmcdevit· t 21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
A thanks from me too, SqueakBox 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
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, Iola k ana| T 16:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Unrelated Mackensen (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
request links:
main •
•
links •
history •
watch •
talk Filed: 17 June 2008 |
SqueakBox temporarily ceased editing on 00:29, 17 June. [1] Burrburr was created on 1:20, 17 June. [2] He temporarily ceased editing on 01:49; SB resumed at 02:42, and stopped at 02:48; Burrburr resumed at 04:23, and stopped at 05:12; and SB resumed at 14:40. Their edits never overlap.
One minute after making a null edit to Vodafone, [3] his first, Burrburr left a comment on Talk:Pederasty [4] in the Wikipedian dialect (using "POV"). [5] SqueakBox has a longstanding interest in paedophilia-related topics and has a history of editing the Pederasty article from the same "side" as Burrburr (one that promotes the view of pederasty as child abuse and unrelated to LGBT). [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Burrburr's other contributions are all minor, and appear to have been done with the intent of inflating his or her edit count. [11] I reverted several unsourced edits by Burrburr. One of these was on Ages of consent in Central America. [12] SB undid my revert to this article shortly after. [13]
Burrburr is obviously not a new user. The evidence above and the similar grammar of SB and Burrburr lead me to suspect it is a sockpuppet of SqueakBox. It is probable, however, that he is using a proxy. User:Ztep and User:Blowhardforever, two previous unproven Squeak socks, were from the same ISP and "likely the same person." BHF is included to check if this 'person' (or more likely, proxy) is back again. -- AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
request links:
main •
•
links •
history •
watch •
talk Filed: 24 May 2008 |
Added by User:SqueakBox and User:PetraSchelm:
User:Blowhardforever today appeared and reverted to User:SqueakBox's preferred version of Pro-paedophile activism. [14] The user also inserted a sock template on User:Jovin Lambton, accusing him of being the long-banned user Voice of Britain. SB has a history of these kind of accusations: At Wikipedia:Pedophile_topic_mentorship#AnotherSolipsist, he claimed I was a sock of VoB ( User:Ryan Postlethwaite cleared me of this charge). Blowhardforever has a reversion edit summary style identical to that of SB: place a grammatically poor justification for the edit behind "Undid revision ..." (compare [15] and [16])
His other edits were limited to a brief comment on Talk:Pro-pedophile activism and the repeated removal of a section critical of SqueakBox from Wikipedia talk:Administrator's noticeboard. [17] [18]
13 minutes before Blowhardforever was registered, [19] SB made this comment that he probably intends to use to prove that he couldn't have been Blowhardforever, because he was "off at the grand carnival." IMO, this is just all the more evidence that he is Blowhardforever.
Ztep is included because, despite strong circumstantial evidence indicating SqueakBox's guilt, checkuser found that their IPs traced to different countries (see the previous request). It's possible that SB has chosen the same proxy as he used for Ztep. -- AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 19:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
request links:
main •
•
links •
history •
watch •
talk Filed: 14 April 2008 |
The following were added by SqueakBox, and remain to avoid an edit war. Code letters do not apply: --AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 02:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Code letter certainly do apply, AnotherSolipsist is accused sockmaster of Ztep as well as the 3 further socks below. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
On 22 January 2007 at 23:38, SqueakBox ( talk · contribs) (who has a history of socking; see 10:37, 22 August 2006 block) was blocked for one week. [22] Approximately one day later, on 23 January 2007 at 22:08, Ztep ( talk · contribs) was created. [23] Ztep immediantly began editing articles frequented by SqueakBox, including Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia, List of Rastafarians, the talk page Joseph Hill, and a redirect to Rastafarian vocabulary (check the history for any of these articles and you'll see SqueakBox's name in abundance). He also edited ETA to delete a reference to terrorism, [24] a POV pushed by Squeak as well. [25] Ztep stopped editing on 28 January 2007 at 17:56, just as Squeak's block was about to expire. The time frame of his editing was Squeak-typical -- around 17 or 21 hours, depending on the day.
Yesterday, Ztep popped back up after a year of inactivity to join in in a revert war on Pro-paedophile activism, after SqueakBox violated 3RR. (Absolutely no one else supported SB's revision, and the protected version has since been changed back to consensus at the request of several editors and administrators [26])) He reverted the article 3 times, at which point it was protected. He also left a note on the talk page, strikingly Squeakboxian in its civilty and sense: "I have been watching for 3 days now and all you have done is told paedophiles where to abuse children,. You clearly have no conscience but you also appear to have no sense either." [27]
ThoughUnlessUntilWhether ( talk · contribs) is included on the recommendation of ThuranX, based on his inflammatory involvement in a thread concerning this and premature knowledge of lingo like "BLP." --AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 02:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well the check user will be able to judge that for themselves given that location is hjis or her speciality. You seem to have a compulsive need to troll me and your removal of yourself and your suspected socks is unacceptable, please do not remove yourself from this checkuser as IMO you are both Ztep and laceibahonduras and this needs to be checked, especially as you display identical behaviour to some of my attackers below. Please go and do some editing like I was till you rudely disturbed me with further trolling as if I havent been trolled enough in the last 24 hours. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Could we have a check on Pol64 and Ztep to see if they are on the same network. Both have behaved in exactly the same way. Lambton T/ C 17:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
request links:
main •
•
links •
history •
watch •
talk Filed: 12 November 2007 |
It is not at all a surprise to find that this is the fourth request. Patterns include frequent use of the word 'clearly', strings of adverbs, similar spelling errors (in posts by both, the letter 'p' shows up by mistake next to the letter 'o'), British spellings used on some words, and Pol64's posts showing up right after those by SqueakBox.
From talk - WP:PAW
Please be civil and don't act like a twat. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
...
Everyopne else? This is a place for everyone not everyone else. And if you wish to stop disrupting, please be my guest. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Neutrality is that pedophiles are sick people, that most of them end up committing offences, and that those whop defend such crimes are in serious need of help. Wikipedia is a noble project and to bring your hate filled spew here as if it were something to be proud of is sickening. Pol64 00:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
From Diff: user talk - Theresa Knott
The comments were clearly highly provocative and meant to be so. I thought such rude behaviour was not allowed in wikipedia? Pol64 00:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Again from Diff: talk - WP:PAW:
What is slander? CP is clearly highly abusive. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
From Diff: user talk - Theresa Knott:
Obscene and trolling comments like this one clearly need refactoring as we are not here to either promote pedophilia or troll other users and this was clearly both. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Other related diffs:
Identical post vandalism by Pol64, including accusation that I am a sex offender
Accusations of promoting pedophilia, along with calling another user a 'twat'
request links:
main •
•
links •
history •
watch •
talk Filed: 27 September 2007 |
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)
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)
See here and here, SqueakBox 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
I also note that CU was declined on the exact same accusation 3 or 4 days ago on this very page [28]., SqueakBox 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
86.156 is unquestionably my IP address, and is the IP address for everyone in my house. I live in London, as my user page mentions. I would add that 82.45 made this request minutes after I accused him of being the sockpuppet of banned users Farenhorst or Samantha Pignez here [29]. Is this not a case of petty revenge? Especially as I see this accusation was made below as well and then rejected. For the record I know nothing about SqueakBox other than what I have read on his user page nor have I ever met him or spoken to him outside wikipedia, and I have certainly never been to Honduras (which is where I assume he lives based on the flags at the bottom of his user page). I do work for an anti-paedophile organisation in the UK and admire Squeak's brave approach to this issue but really I doubt if we have much in common and the fact that I agree with his edits and disagree with those of Mike D78 or 82.45 is not surprising really. Unfortunately I have seen the damage that predatory paedophiles do in the real world and that informs my opinions which inform my edits on wikipedia. Pol64 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Rejected The lot of you need to stop, this is a place to request a check, not debate. Checks need to be succinctly worded with supporting diffs, and debates need to be held elsewhere. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
request links:
main •
•
links •
history •
watch •
talk Filed: 22 September 2007 |
Just curious: Roman Czyborra 02:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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/?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)
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)
Unrelated. Dmcdevit· t 21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
A thanks from me too, SqueakBox 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
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, Iola k ana| T 16:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Unrelated Mackensen (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)