Be aware that AnotherSollipsist is removing the evidence against him from this check user, signs of guilt possibly maybe even probably but whatever it is unacceptable to remove other users comments in a page like this especially as AS appears to be using multiple socks including Ztep. He removed the comments twice. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This CU has validity as long as all statements are taken into account. One wonders why AS keeps removing evidence against his buddy as in Here as wella s why he is to troll me with impunity. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Clerk note: moved from the case filled on 24 May 2008. --
lucasbfr
talk
12:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I find it hard to understand that you are accusing AnotherSolipsist of trolling, considering your comments towards him. The obvious outcome of this CU is no relation at all. The most suspect account is Ztep - who you claim was attempting to frame you, despite being set up long before you ever edited WP:PAW (and whilst you were serving a ban), then editing some of your fave articles, and then jumping in immediately into a pedophile article when you were nose to nose with the WP:3RR. Now, he won't be associated with your IP, but he will need his computer standards checking, and then a thorough investigation to decide whether the evidence is not obvious in itself.
Also, please do not remove this comment. J*Lambton T/ C 22:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit confused about Ztep being included again. Ztep has not edited since the last RCU (as he is indef blocked) and therefore a new RCU comparing him to I is unnecessary. Now if Blowhard is a sock of Ztep that would not be a case for RCU/SqueakBox but one of RCU/Ztep. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Very odd accusation. I assume he is accusing me of framing him. I am not a man of such high intelligence and metaphysical knowledge that I would create an account a matter of a year plus before my current one at the moment that SqueakBox was banned, use it to edit his favourite articles during his ban, and then finally fulfil its intended purpose by helping SqueakBox avoid the 3RR on an article that I have only recently become a frequent editor on. Hell, I couldn't even do such a good impression of him. J-Lambton T/ C 23:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved from the case filled on 24 May 2008. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 17:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you people really do fight dirty. Nonetheless, I am no sockpuppet. MariontheLibrarian and WriteMakesRight are both me. I created WriteMakesRight because I was having trouble logging in as MariontheLibrarian; I hadn't yet figured out that logins were case sensitive.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
13:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You're clearly an experienced user as is shown by the edit summaries, not someone confused by the differences between Wikipedia and a chat board. You chose two different user names with the same capitalization style, so that's how you like to do things. Why would you suddenly use all lower case when you logged in the second time? And when it didn't work, why not try it the way you originally wrote it? Clearly, you remembered how you wrote it, since that's the style you regularly use.
No worries, let's assume good faith and put all that behind us.
The right thing to do now is for you to abandon the account you don't need, since you created it only to log in when you lost your login info.
You can do that by posting this template on the user page for WriteMakesRight:
{{FormerAccount|MarionTheLibrarian}}
and then don't log in to that account any more.
It would be best to also place this on your main user page:
{{User Alternate Acct Name|WriteMakesRight}}
That way, no-one will get the wrong idea about those two accounts. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 18:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've done some looking around and I found some useful information. First on the Request for Check user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser that is says this in bold
"Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Whenever possible, use other methods first"
in *bold* lettering. When you look at the way Anothersolopsist has been treating my contributions (see detailing below) and that he never once contacted me for why he disagreed with my work and that I have been contributing for less than 24 hrs at the point, he decided to make this a first resort instead of a last one. There was no in between. Why is this a last resort? Probably because it involves an invasion of privacy which means this is a very low and dirty attack from Anothersolopsist to someone he has not even communicated to. And yes, I *do* prefer to have my privacy respected. What boggles me is his extreme reaction which is almost like he is personally offended by my editing or by me. Are the pages I was working on *that* controversial?
Second, on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Checkuser it says
"Grounds for checking
The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any Wikimedia project.
The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)."
Based on Anothersolopsist's behavior following my edits, he is guilty of "apply pressure on editors; threat against another editor in a content dispute".
Late on the same page it says this:
"Requests should not be accepted on the basis of "fishing" - that is, requests by users without a good and specific cause. On their own cognisance they may however perform privately as part of their role, any checks within the bounds of CheckUser policy - that is to say, any check which is reasonably performed in order to address issues of disruption or damage to the project."
Anothersolopsist's (why can't you have a name that is easier to spell?) "case" against me is as flimsy as his reasons for undoing my contributions (see evidence provided below with links) and is closer to fishing - "requests by users without a good and specific cause". He also failed to say how my writing is like Sqweakbox's other than the fact we are both writing in English. In that case Anothersolopsist's writing is just like Sqweakbox's too. Also, how is anything that I've done so far "disruption or damange to the project?"
In summary Anothersolopsist is just using this as a way to be disruptive to other people which matches his pattern of undoing my editing with clearly false justification and invade my privacy which is more important. What he is doing to my edits is "disruptive or damage to the project" and his thing with the checkuser device is also abusive. I think this should be reported somehow and something should be done about this. Thank you.-- Burrburr ( talk) 00:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Again you are blanket-undoing everything I do with absolutely no explanation or no rational explanation in some cases. I just found another example of you taking away my contribution with a "fake" reason. You did this http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Child_abuse&diff=219981130&oldid=219861014 and your commment was "poor title". If you look at the section you can easily see the change from "Effects" to "Psychological Damage" that I did was really a *better* title. The whole section talks about anxiety, psychiatric problems, etc. I'm coping the paragraph below so you can see exactly what I mean.
"Children with a history of neglect or physical abuse are at risk of developing psychiatric problems,[14][15] including a disorganized attachment style.[16][17][18] Disorganized attachment is associated with a number of developmental problems, including dissociative symptoms,[19] as well as anxiety, depressive, and acting-out symptoms.[20][21] A study by Dante Cicchetti found that 80% of abused and maltreated infants exhibited symptoms of disorganized attachment.[22][23]
The effects of child abuse vary, depending on its type. A 2006 study found that childhood emotional and sexual abuse were strongly related to adult depressive symptoms, while exposure to verbal abuse and witnessing of domestic violence had a moderately strong association, and physical abuse a moderate one. For depression, experiencing more than two kinds of abuse exerted synergetically stronger symptoms. Sexual abuse was particularly deleterious in its intrafamilial form, for symptoms of depression, anxiety, dissociation, and limbic irritability. Childhood verbal abuse had a stronger association with anger-hostility than any other type of abuse studied, and was second only to emotional abuse in its relationship with dissociative symptoms.[24]"
If you look at Anothersoloplist's actions on me following my edits and see how many of them are unjustified, it's clear he is more interested in harassing me than in useful constructive work. -- Burrburr ( talk) 23:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
SqueakBox temporarily ceased editing on 00:29, 17 June. [6] Burrburr was created on 1:20, 17 June. [7] 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, [8] his first, Burrburr left a comment on Talk:Pederasty [9] in the Wikipedian dialect (using "POV"). [10] 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). [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Burrburr's other contributions are all minor, and appear to have been done with the intent of inflating his or her edit count. [16] I reverted several unsourced edits by Burrburr. One of these was on Ages of consent in Central America. [17] SB undid my revert to this article shortly after. [18]
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)
Wow, I don't know whether to be flattered, bemused, or angered by the notion that I'm another manifest of another contributor.
First, POV is a common acronym, especially in the gaming world, so it's not unique to wikipedia. Also, I was on the vodafone page because I was looking to get a new phone, not that that is any of your business. Also if you look at what I wrote you will see I wrote this. "It says clearly on the to-do list above that one of the things to do is to remove POV and Bias in the article as it stood as of September 2006." It says on the discussion page of the pederasty article "Remove the POV and Bias from the article." ! Am I guilty of being able to read?
Next, what is the point of "inflating his or her edit count"? What do I get from that? Does it give my contributions more say or power? That makes no sense to me at all. And if you actually look at the age of consent pages, I added to them *after* I made the contributions to the pederasty page for the same reasons: I was clarifying the average age of consents in each page. How is that not useful? That's rather insulting.
Related to this, you say I'm on the "other" side of a debate. Is it a coincidence that you are on the "side" "opposing" me? I think not. You have systematically gone and reverted all my edits, even on the age of consent pages when you know they are legitimate. A perfect example is Ages of consent in Asia. Here is the contribution I made and how you took it away http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ages_of_consent_in_Asia&diff=prev&oldid=219981953. Look at the reason you gave ("(rv unsourced)"). How is "with most places hovering around 16 to 18 (see below for more details)." unsourced?? Looks like you're the one causing problems.
For all these reasons, I'm removing myself from this list.
Thank you.
And Sqeakbox, he's/she's not just harrassing you. Maybe that's his/her main intention, maybe not. My point is he's (I'm going to assume it's a he for simplicity) pulling other users into his "wikilegal" battles with you. Whatever history the two of you may have, it is very inconsiderate/selfish of him to do that to others. He clearly doesn't care about the inconveienence he causes others.
Be aware that AnotherSollipsist is removing the evidence against him from this check user, signs of guilt possibly maybe even probably but whatever it is unacceptable to remove other users comments in a page like this especially as AS appears to be using multiple socks including Ztep. He removed the comments twice. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This CU has validity as long as all statements are taken into account. One wonders why AS keeps removing evidence against his buddy as in Here as wella s why he is to troll me with impunity. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Clerk note: moved from the case filled on 24 May 2008. --
lucasbfr
talk
12:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I find it hard to understand that you are accusing AnotherSolipsist of trolling, considering your comments towards him. The obvious outcome of this CU is no relation at all. The most suspect account is Ztep - who you claim was attempting to frame you, despite being set up long before you ever edited WP:PAW (and whilst you were serving a ban), then editing some of your fave articles, and then jumping in immediately into a pedophile article when you were nose to nose with the WP:3RR. Now, he won't be associated with your IP, but he will need his computer standards checking, and then a thorough investigation to decide whether the evidence is not obvious in itself.
Also, please do not remove this comment. J*Lambton T/ C 22:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit confused about Ztep being included again. Ztep has not edited since the last RCU (as he is indef blocked) and therefore a new RCU comparing him to I is unnecessary. Now if Blowhard is a sock of Ztep that would not be a case for RCU/SqueakBox but one of RCU/Ztep. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Very odd accusation. I assume he is accusing me of framing him. I am not a man of such high intelligence and metaphysical knowledge that I would create an account a matter of a year plus before my current one at the moment that SqueakBox was banned, use it to edit his favourite articles during his ban, and then finally fulfil its intended purpose by helping SqueakBox avoid the 3RR on an article that I have only recently become a frequent editor on. Hell, I couldn't even do such a good impression of him. J-Lambton T/ C 23:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved from the case filled on 24 May 2008. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 17:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you people really do fight dirty. Nonetheless, I am no sockpuppet. MariontheLibrarian and WriteMakesRight are both me. I created WriteMakesRight because I was having trouble logging in as MariontheLibrarian; I hadn't yet figured out that logins were case sensitive.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
13:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You're clearly an experienced user as is shown by the edit summaries, not someone confused by the differences between Wikipedia and a chat board. You chose two different user names with the same capitalization style, so that's how you like to do things. Why would you suddenly use all lower case when you logged in the second time? And when it didn't work, why not try it the way you originally wrote it? Clearly, you remembered how you wrote it, since that's the style you regularly use.
No worries, let's assume good faith and put all that behind us.
The right thing to do now is for you to abandon the account you don't need, since you created it only to log in when you lost your login info.
You can do that by posting this template on the user page for WriteMakesRight:
{{FormerAccount|MarionTheLibrarian}}
and then don't log in to that account any more.
It would be best to also place this on your main user page:
{{User Alternate Acct Name|WriteMakesRight}}
That way, no-one will get the wrong idea about those two accounts. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 18:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've done some looking around and I found some useful information. First on the Request for Check user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser that is says this in bold
"Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Whenever possible, use other methods first"
in *bold* lettering. When you look at the way Anothersolopsist has been treating my contributions (see detailing below) and that he never once contacted me for why he disagreed with my work and that I have been contributing for less than 24 hrs at the point, he decided to make this a first resort instead of a last one. There was no in between. Why is this a last resort? Probably because it involves an invasion of privacy which means this is a very low and dirty attack from Anothersolopsist to someone he has not even communicated to. And yes, I *do* prefer to have my privacy respected. What boggles me is his extreme reaction which is almost like he is personally offended by my editing or by me. Are the pages I was working on *that* controversial?
Second, on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Checkuser it says
"Grounds for checking
The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any Wikimedia project.
The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)."
Based on Anothersolopsist's behavior following my edits, he is guilty of "apply pressure on editors; threat against another editor in a content dispute".
Late on the same page it says this:
"Requests should not be accepted on the basis of "fishing" - that is, requests by users without a good and specific cause. On their own cognisance they may however perform privately as part of their role, any checks within the bounds of CheckUser policy - that is to say, any check which is reasonably performed in order to address issues of disruption or damage to the project."
Anothersolopsist's (why can't you have a name that is easier to spell?) "case" against me is as flimsy as his reasons for undoing my contributions (see evidence provided below with links) and is closer to fishing - "requests by users without a good and specific cause". He also failed to say how my writing is like Sqweakbox's other than the fact we are both writing in English. In that case Anothersolopsist's writing is just like Sqweakbox's too. Also, how is anything that I've done so far "disruption or damange to the project?"
In summary Anothersolopsist is just using this as a way to be disruptive to other people which matches his pattern of undoing my editing with clearly false justification and invade my privacy which is more important. What he is doing to my edits is "disruptive or damage to the project" and his thing with the checkuser device is also abusive. I think this should be reported somehow and something should be done about this. Thank you.-- Burrburr ( talk) 00:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Again you are blanket-undoing everything I do with absolutely no explanation or no rational explanation in some cases. I just found another example of you taking away my contribution with a "fake" reason. You did this http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Child_abuse&diff=219981130&oldid=219861014 and your commment was "poor title". If you look at the section you can easily see the change from "Effects" to "Psychological Damage" that I did was really a *better* title. The whole section talks about anxiety, psychiatric problems, etc. I'm coping the paragraph below so you can see exactly what I mean.
"Children with a history of neglect or physical abuse are at risk of developing psychiatric problems,[14][15] including a disorganized attachment style.[16][17][18] Disorganized attachment is associated with a number of developmental problems, including dissociative symptoms,[19] as well as anxiety, depressive, and acting-out symptoms.[20][21] A study by Dante Cicchetti found that 80% of abused and maltreated infants exhibited symptoms of disorganized attachment.[22][23]
The effects of child abuse vary, depending on its type. A 2006 study found that childhood emotional and sexual abuse were strongly related to adult depressive symptoms, while exposure to verbal abuse and witnessing of domestic violence had a moderately strong association, and physical abuse a moderate one. For depression, experiencing more than two kinds of abuse exerted synergetically stronger symptoms. Sexual abuse was particularly deleterious in its intrafamilial form, for symptoms of depression, anxiety, dissociation, and limbic irritability. Childhood verbal abuse had a stronger association with anger-hostility than any other type of abuse studied, and was second only to emotional abuse in its relationship with dissociative symptoms.[24]"
If you look at Anothersoloplist's actions on me following my edits and see how many of them are unjustified, it's clear he is more interested in harassing me than in useful constructive work. -- Burrburr ( talk) 23:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
SqueakBox temporarily ceased editing on 00:29, 17 June. [6] Burrburr was created on 1:20, 17 June. [7] 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, [8] his first, Burrburr left a comment on Talk:Pederasty [9] in the Wikipedian dialect (using "POV"). [10] 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). [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Burrburr's other contributions are all minor, and appear to have been done with the intent of inflating his or her edit count. [16] I reverted several unsourced edits by Burrburr. One of these was on Ages of consent in Central America. [17] SB undid my revert to this article shortly after. [18]
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)
Wow, I don't know whether to be flattered, bemused, or angered by the notion that I'm another manifest of another contributor.
First, POV is a common acronym, especially in the gaming world, so it's not unique to wikipedia. Also, I was on the vodafone page because I was looking to get a new phone, not that that is any of your business. Also if you look at what I wrote you will see I wrote this. "It says clearly on the to-do list above that one of the things to do is to remove POV and Bias in the article as it stood as of September 2006." It says on the discussion page of the pederasty article "Remove the POV and Bias from the article." ! Am I guilty of being able to read?
Next, what is the point of "inflating his or her edit count"? What do I get from that? Does it give my contributions more say or power? That makes no sense to me at all. And if you actually look at the age of consent pages, I added to them *after* I made the contributions to the pederasty page for the same reasons: I was clarifying the average age of consents in each page. How is that not useful? That's rather insulting.
Related to this, you say I'm on the "other" side of a debate. Is it a coincidence that you are on the "side" "opposing" me? I think not. You have systematically gone and reverted all my edits, even on the age of consent pages when you know they are legitimate. A perfect example is Ages of consent in Asia. Here is the contribution I made and how you took it away http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ages_of_consent_in_Asia&diff=prev&oldid=219981953. Look at the reason you gave ("(rv unsourced)"). How is "with most places hovering around 16 to 18 (see below for more details)." unsourced?? Looks like you're the one causing problems.
For all these reasons, I'm removing myself from this list.
Thank you.
And Sqeakbox, he's/she's not just harrassing you. Maybe that's his/her main intention, maybe not. My point is he's (I'm going to assume it's a he for simplicity) pulling other users into his "wikilegal" battles with you. Whatever history the two of you may have, it is very inconsiderate/selfish of him to do that to others. He clearly doesn't care about the inconveienence he causes others.