Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/SqueakBox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

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)

He is now removing my comments, again with the obvious purpose of covering up his own role in socking and trolling another user. Why is he allowed to continue trolling me as he has done for so long, he just wants to make me snap so he can get me banned and continue the behaviour he got blocked for. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I removed our comments because they clutter the page and are totally useless to the CheckUser, which could result in my request being delayed. I hope that wasn't your intention. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the results, Thatcher, I must say I had guessed ThoughUnlessUntilWhether's identity myself. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cheating again

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)

  • Here AS trolls like he always has on this page [1]./ he needs to understand this si not his personal trollfest page, sure he can troll me a bit but he cannot remove the evidence that he remopves in order to cover up the trolling of him and his friend. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added User:Roman Czyborra (banneed for soliciting minors on wikipedia) and User:AnotherSolipsist as being likely part oft eh web of socks and users trying to troll me, SB. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Here AS removed the legit sock tag from his user page, presumably in order to cover up his actions, and cos he does not want others to see this genuine concern that an editor who solicits minors may have returned. wait for the CU, please. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:04, 24 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)

Looking at the evidence alone, it is beyond obvious that some sockpuppetry has occurred. The question now becomes: who's the master? Given SqueakBox's history, and from the few times I have seen long-term users engage in sockpuppetry, I must say it does not look promising for him at all. Following that pattern, of course, means that this RFCU will come up completely false except for one or two users, which (IMHO) would prove that proxies or wrongly indicated IP2Location'd IPs, and would prove a correlation all the same. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Strike that, confused in my reading. There may be a sock or two, but as usual, the sockpuppetry belongs to the boneheads (sorry, paedophiles) who keep trying to file a report against him. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Claimed IP moved from request list. [ Assisting with formatting: moved the following {{checkip}} and related text from where it was embedded in the requested list. Checkuser not needed on this IP because the user has claimed the IP. The related comments below appear relevant to the open case. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC) ]
    • 82.25.179.169 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
      • - Me - I never used it to sock, and apologised for not logging in. Pathetic. J*Lambton T/C 01:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • He most certainly did use it to sock abusively: [2], and it should be checked against the other open proxy socks he's warred in tandem with for the last month. -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Why would I (as 82.) tell SqueakBox to ignore any edits made by that IP, and then use my account to claim the IP, all before anyone publicly raised any suspicion? Why would I be stupid enough to use my own IP? Boring, repetitive, baseless accusations. J*Lambton T/C 04:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
            • You did *not* tell anyone to disregard your edits, and you made a very controversial attack edit + defrauded consensus. I emailed East.718 with a request to block that IP on the duck test after its second edit. And you didn't claim the IP until I publicly accused you of sockpuppetry at AN/I. -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Been through this b4, have we not? [3] [4] before any of your, or anyone else's complaints. Why would I commit suicide? J*Lambton T/C 06:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Actually, the second IP (the one that I claim after failing to log in) is different to the one that I advised SqueakBox to ignore due to my failure to log in. I only just noticed that. J*Lambton T/C 07:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • How did you establish that I was the first IP, when all I used it for was to anonymously tell another editor not to consider my edits in consensus building? J*Lambton T/C 07:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
As usual you make no sense. You forgot to log in at pro-pedophile activism, then re-edited to claim your IP. I compared that IP to the IP I suspected of being a sock from the moment it appeared. The two IPs geolocated to the same place and same ISP. Then I publicly accused you at AN/I, and at pedophile mentorship. You confessed, and tried to pretend that saying "I forgot to log in" on your IP talkpage May 20 could excuse abusive use of the IP to sock on May 9 and 11th after-the-fact. Because you are gulity, you apparently didn't notice until now that the two IPs are slightly different--you just tried to make excuses that don't hold up. Now you notice that you didn't even have to do that, you could have waited for the checkuser, haha. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note also that, according to East.718, "checkuser turned up nothing" when I asked for an initial check on the 82.25 IP. This could mean that Jovin's 82.27 IP is a new one he is using, and should be checked against all the socks of last month he spent so much time wikilawyering for. (I don't think the two IPs go to exactly the same town, so maybe a work/home situation.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:59, 27 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)

[edit] SqueakBox Accusation > Ztep=Lambton

My own guess is that Blowhardforeve is Jovin, which is why it is important Jovin is included in the check. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think he is Louisa, Cole_Dealton, Britishlaw, and FarenhorstO as well as Blowhardforever. (Probably also Cocktailexpert and Onevictim , too-they should be added).-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:27, 25 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)

Hmm, This edit merely confirmed it. Please don't underestimate your abilities or assume that anyone else will. As Will Beback said ages back, you are far from stupid or unsophisiticated, nor are you that new for that matter. Self-depreciation is rarely convincing. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Voice of Britain, Mike D78, Richard Baude, Daniel Lievre and of course BLueRibbon to mention a few more of the already indef blocked likely socks of Jovin. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This is what happens when you mix overtones of pedophilia with uncritical thinking. Who else do you think I am? Jacko? J-Lambton T/C 02:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That is 3 times we have agreed tonight. AS is indeed responsible for uncritical thinking in posting this latest RCU. Well either that or pure trolling but I assume good faith, ie uncritical thinking. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's be serious now. Ztep was created before you were interested in WP:PAW articles. Why would someone who wants to frame you on PAW articles happen to be in control of such an account? What kind of pressure would force you into making such a wild claim? And why would I have had a grudge against you before you started your glorious reign over at PAW? Can you suggest any earlier users that I may have been?
And surely you saw him editing your favourite articles during your ban? Why get so concerned about framing when someone finally expresses the opinion that you may be a puppet master? J-Lambton T/C 05:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You're just annoying the checkusers, who are not interested in your constant disruption and attempts to make ridiculous accusations against Squeakbox to deflect attention from this: [5]. -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
But that section actually shows how you are wrong. I don't understand. J-Lambton T/C 06:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The section shows that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but only to cause disruption. Like the part about how have added less than a dozen references to any articles the entire time you have been here, and that they were all pro-pedophile cites. -PetraSchelm (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Well that's patently incorrect to anyone who looks at my contribs. Find something else. J-Lambton T/C 07:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyone who looks at your contribs will see that you have added less than a dozen references in all the time you've been here, and that they were all pro-pedophile cites. -PetraSchelm (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
False. Look at my contribs. J-Lambton T/C 08:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh huh, we did look at your contribs, that's how we know you're not here to build an encyclopedia, you're here to cause conflict and contribute a handful of self-published pro-pedophile websites. Meanwhile, here's a new probable open proxy sock to add to Jovin's list--appeared yesterday to tell him he's a "real cool editor": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/219.79.186.13 -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Look harder. J-Lambton T/C 22:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Why would I go and look ever again at the same handful of self-published pro-pedophile cites you put in articles, as your only reference contributions? Endlessly denying it won't retroactively change your contrib history. You've been invited repeatedly to show diffs proving me wrong--but you haven't, because you can't. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Prove it before making false accusations (by the way, why are you always logged in?) J-Lambton T/C 22:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MarionTheLibrarian and WriteMakesRight

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)

So, you had no trouble logging in as Marion May 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, but suddenly had trouble on May 25? (If you created both accts on May 18 because of a case sensitivity problem log in problem with the Marion acct, why return to the second acct a week later, after you presumably figured it out? Also, both accts include capital letters--why would you not be able to log in as Marion but be able to log in as WriteMakesRight if you were using lowercase?) -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Ho-hum. I am telling you why I created WriteMakesRight an hour after creating Marion, which is what you asked. I used capitals for registering the names but not when logging in because in a chat system that I use regularly the caps appear on the screen, but are irrelevant when actually logging in. I logged in as again as WriteMakesRight a week later as part of teaching someone else how to use the system before they created their own account. Next accusation/question needing a nonparanoid/logical explanation?
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:24, 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)

Thank you. I wasn't able to find instructions on how to delete the second account.
For the record: Over the past 10 days I have been told several times by several people both that I am quite experienced and that I am quite inexperienced. No one has every actually thought to ask me. The correct answer is that I have no wiki experience. I do, however, have substantial professional experience in publishing and in editing as well as with computers (I was completing a masters in AI before switching to another field). So, I probably just caught on faster than most.
It is unfortunate that the controversies in my areas of interest have produced such paranoia. I personally have a thick skin, but I have to wonder how many other users have abandoned participation and run for their cyber-lives.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I just noticed that I didn't actually answer your question. When I first registered, I typed "MarionTheLibrarian," which is indeed the formatting I prefer. But when I was logging back in, I was typing "marionthelibrarian." It took me a moment to notice that I was skipping the capitalization merely out of habit rather than paying attention to the new system.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't notice the part where you asked anybody for information on how to delete your sockpuppet acct. And it's typical sockpuppet behavior to combine selective proficiency with feigned ignorance for 3RR, and civility, and WP:NOT. Also, the only "controversy" you have been involved in is the repeated warnings from several editors to your talkpage re 3RR, edit warring, and warnings re civility to the talkpage of an article. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I never tried asking any individual person. I tried searches, but didn't find anything helpful. If you persue my prior debates more thoroughly than what is visible on my talkpage (such as by looking on their talkpages and on the discussion pages for the articles in question, then you will see that they have all ended amicably. You are the only exception. The remaining comments you have above are accusations you have made before. My responses to them are the same.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hmm, and if you were just "teaching someone how to use the system," why log in as your sockpuppet instead of your main acct to do so, let alone make edits as a sock? (I suppose you weren't just showing them how to log in, but how to edit too, and you had to use a sock to do so because...?)-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
In order to skip the registration step and jump to answering/exemplifying my pupil's question, which was about editing. She then had the option to keep that name for herself or to pick a new one. She picked a new one. Next question?
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't fly. You could have skipped the registration step by logging in to your main acct. Why not drop the lame excuses. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
By using the secondary account, she had the option to just keep using the same account that she was learning on. Had we used my main account, she would not have had that option. Btw, although you are certainly free not to believe my edits, calling them "lame excuses" is a violation of wiki rules, I believe.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, in that case you could have let her pick her own name in the first place, and/or immediately asked for info about how to indicate that the second acct was yours. I say "lame" because I believe that's a good objective term for your belaboring of explanations that are not remotely credible to outside observers. And it's fine to comment on contributions--I didn't say you yourself were lame. Claiming that others are "paranoid," however, is a violation of the WP:NPA policy. Particularly as the suspicion that you were using a sockpuppet was verified. Your insinuation that this anything to do with a "controversy," is equally inappropriate, as your talkpage is full of warnings for edit warring and 3RR from multiple editors--the only controversy you have been involved in is your own bad behavior. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I could have. That would have required added a step irrelevant to answering my pupils question. "Lame" is never objective; it necessarily in the eye of the beholder. Until someone else agrees with your assessment, you have no basis for suggesting how things look to outside observers. Only your own opinion is available. I was never accused of using a sockpuppet. I was accused of being a sockpuppet; and that was disconfirmed. You are repeating your reference to the content of my talkpage, so I can only repeat my response that you explore those conversations more thoroughly.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You were accused both of being and using a sockpuppet. As Jack said, You're clearly an experienced user. Now that we've established you did use a sockpuppet, what is your explanation for why you so quick to catch on to some things, but so slow to catch on to the rules about 3RR and edit warring that your talkpage is full of warnings, and completely unable to figure out how to indicate that you had a second account? That does't really add up, now does it. That would make you a very selective quick study. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Jack was incorrect. Feel free to ask him if he has any evidence to alter the presumption of good faith. We did not establish any such thing. I volunteered I had a second account, as soon as I discovered that there was an accusation. A sock-puppet is "used for purposes of deception." I neither deceived nor attempted to deceive anyone. If you have any evidence to the contrary, feel free to use it as you see fit. To say that I am any faster or slower to pick up on any one thing versus another makes sense only if I were exposed to all of the information. That is not the case; I learned whatever I was exposed to or had a situation causing me to look for it.
To return to a prior point, I never called anyone paranoid. I refered to a general air of paranoia. Your comment about "lame excuses," however, was aimed specifically at me and my comment.
Now then: It is clear that you believe that I am guilty of something—although I am not clear on exactly what—and that you believe it is up to me to prove my innocence—although I am also unclear about exactly what would convince you. So, in order to hurry this all up, please report me to whomever you like and have me investigated by whomever you like. Other than promising to cooperate fully with whoever it is that has that authority (which I do promise), I am not sure what else I can do.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)