Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SqueakBox

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

SqueakBox

request links: main • edit • 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

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)[reply]


  • Note for checkuser admin: This is the third RFCU posted here by User:AnotherSolipsist about SqueakBox in less than three months; the prior two sections immediately preceeding on this page were both added by this same user. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note It is highly suspected that
    SqueakBox is employing meatpuppets. I have seen him colluding with Don Murphy over on Wikipedia Review, trying to encourage him to continue socking in the name of protecting Wikipedia from pedophiles. I need not remind people that Don Murphy is the same asshole who harassed NYBrad's law firm in to forcing him to quit Wikipedia. People like SqueakBox truly [refactor]. --Dragon695 (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
What complete rubbish. (a) I only know Don Murphy through wikipedia (hardly a meat puppet) (b)we do not get on, see
SqueakBox 00:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • information Note: When you add to a request you also have to re-list in on the main RFCU page by transclusion, otherwise no checkuser will see it unless it is already on their watch list.
  • Burrburr is Red X Unrelated, however he seems to have about 30 other accounts. A limited amount of account segregation is permitted if one wants to keep pederasty-related edits on a different account that your other hobbies; however there appear to be multiple accounts with topical overlap on both the pederasty and non-pederasty interests. I need to analyze this further before making any final decisions. Thatcher 11:03, 19 June 2008 (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: 24 May 2008

Added by

User:SqueakBox and User:PetraSchelm
:

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

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)[reply]

There may be a pattern here.
User:SqueakBox. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
Continuation of MariontheLibrarian and WriteMakesRight sockpuppet discussion moved to talk page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Jovin Lambton as I believe he is both Ztep (who was included before) and this new user Blowhardforever, as well as being laceibahonduras, other Lambton socks created in order to troll a user he hates. I'll bet my wikipedia account that Blowhardforever is not editing from Honduras. I have been enjoying our Carnival and am back to out to have more fun. Thanks,
SqueakBox 21:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
 Clerk note: RFCU is not a place to argue at each other, please. I have moved the following comments on the talk page, please keep the discussion there. -- lucasbfr talk 12:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ztep and Blowhardforever are on British Telecom, probably broadband. I would say they are  Likely to be the same person. BT IPs are usually highly dynamic and it is unlikely that they are proxies, at least not stable enough to be easily found. Checkuser can not, of course, detect other forms of cooperation, if they exist.
  • Lambton is on a different UK ISP.
  • MariontheLibrarian/WriteMakesRight and AnotherSolipsist are unrelated.
  • Laceibahonduras, Louisa_Petit-Ladoumegue, Britishlaw, FarenhorstO, and Cole_Dealton are all on open proxies. There are not enough distinctive IPs to make a good determination, but it appears likely that there are at least 2 and maybe 3 different editors involved in these proxies. None of them can be tied to any non-proxy editor. Thatcher 16:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:SqueakBox is not cited in these findings, anyone against moving this case to an other subpage? -- lucasbfr talk 19:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
That's a good idea. If you proceed, please move the related talk page discussion (May 24 and later) along with the main page content. Thanks for your help with this. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to move yet, as there is still an outstanding issue. An explanation as to what SB's checkuser revealed is needed. Is he or is he not related to the first two, as the original request outlined? --Dragon695 (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears two editors are related to each other, the rest are unrelated although some are suspect, and none of them are related to either SqueakBox or Jovin Lambton. Can a checkuser confirm this? If so, I think it would be appropriate to move it to another page. Orderinchaos 08:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no technical connection between Lambton, Squeakbox, and the other editors. I have seen allegations that Squeakbox has friends in the UK edit for him, and it is theoretically possible that Lambton is editing through both dsl and dial-up with different ISPs to conceal something. This speculation is beyond the scope of the technical findings, and the place to pursue it, if desired, would be SSP or ANI. Thatcher 02:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


SqueakBox

request links: main • edit • 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)[reply
]

  • Code letter: E,F

On 22 January 2007 at 23:38,

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]

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)[reply]

Err, and knowing what BLP is makes him my sock by what logical leap. Thanks,
SqueakBox 02:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply
]

Everything relevant looks to be here, leave the page as is, both of you, or I am going to protect it. KnightLago (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I request that you please do lock it. Thanks,
SqueakBox 02:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
No not now. I am going to watch the page and if anymore of this crap continues I am going to protect it and start blocking people for disruption. KnightLago (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Squeakbox is Red X Unrelated.
  • Ztep is on a dial-up in another country.
  • ThoughUnlessUntilWhether is
    talk · contribs
    )
  • AnotherSolipsist is Red X Unrelated
  • Jovin Lambton is in the same country as Ztep but on a different ISP.
  • Laceibahonduras is on the same tor nodes as I am Dr. Drakken (talk · contribs) and is likely to be him based on other evidence.
  • Bmj4 is on open proxies, but based on shared proxies and timing is probably also Laceibahonduras/I am Dr. Drakken. Thatcher 03:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]




SqueakBox

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 12 November 2007
  • Code letter: B,F.

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)[reply
]

Other related diffs:

Post vandalism by Squeakbox

Identical post vandalism by Pol64, including accusation that I am a sex offender

Accusations of promoting pedophilia, along with calling another user a 'twat'

Given the comments below this looks like further harrassment when it has been proven 3 times, including with RCU, that Pol64 has no relation to me. I do not see any evidence here that would contradict RCU or the p[revious cases but there is evidence that Holo is engaged in a campaign of harrassment against me. But the bit about using British terms is very amusing. It's because we are both British, though I am happy to confirm that I have never edited wikipedia from the UK, including recently. Thanks,
SqueakBox 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Rejected. --Deskana (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 [28].,

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]
Well if my ISP doesn't control my IP how could I do so? I don't believe you have proven any ignorance on my behalf but would suggest you are ignorant of how my ISP works. Diffs would destroy the killer evidence? Well it can't be killer evidence then. We use diffs here to confirm evidence and if the diffs don't confirm the evidence the hypothesis is generally considered invalid. As I am not Pol64 or editing from a UK based IP I aklso fail to understand your "a lack of co-ordination will expose you as the puppet-master" comment either, indeed your latest reasonse is baffling, on the other hand your comment "of course you can change your IP" after I specifically told you that I can't do so is indeed to accuse me of lying, as you are now acusing me of being a fool whereas I am neither a liar nor a fool and your accusations are pretty incivil and bordering on personal attack, ,
SqueakBox 22:40, 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
    ]
He continued to use the account as if it were a sock, going on to infract the 3RR. Anyway, this is irrelevant to you until the point at which you are exposed as the sock-puppeteer. Then, the sock's infraction may be used against you. 82.45.15.121 22:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you haven't provided any more evidence than the below checkuser request based on the same accusation, ie that I am using Pol64 as a sockpuppet and given the previous identical accusation was rejected a few days back I see no reason why this accusation shouldn't be equally soundly rejected. How loong do I have to put up with this same accusation? 22:44, 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)[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]

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)[reply]


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?
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

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
]

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=1142570866"