Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SqueakBox (3rd)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Pol64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.156.210.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Amateur cyclone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Dyskolos 04:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

At (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SqueakBox), 82:45 raised some points about the possibility of socking, that I think were ignored. As well as the obvious shared interests, deployment of the Pol64 character when SB is approaching the 3RR and similar typing inaccuracies (diffs can be provided if current evidence is insufficient), it seems as if the login and edit times of these two accounts have not been investigated. To allow you to do this, I shall list all of Pol64's edits, broken up into what appear to be login sessions. I will also show strings of SqueakBox edits that are close to these sessions, when available. Although SqueakBox's presence as a regular means that we must urge caution before drawing conclusions from similar login times, a few more patterns can be observed by using this method:

Pol64 on 1 Aug:

· 20:53, 1 August 2007 · 20:50, 1 August 2007 · 20:48, 1 August 2007 · 20:47, 1 August 2007

SqueakBox was logged in on this day, at a similar time, with no overlap and a gap in editing for Pol64's session. Here is a cropped sample:

· 21:17, 1 August 2007 · 21:16, 1 August 2007 · 21:05, 1 August 2007 · 21:04, 1 August 2007 · 21:03, 1 August 2007 · 21:01, 1 August 2007 · 21:00, 1 August 2007 · 20:37, 1 August 2007 · 20:12, 1 August 2007 · 20:12, 1 August 2007 · 20:11, 1 August 2007 · 20:05, 1 August 2007 · 20:05, 1 August 2007

Pol64 on 2 Aug:

· 20:50, 2 August 2007 · 20:46, 2 August 2007 · 20:41, 2 August 2007 · 20:40, 2 August 2007 · 20:38, 2 August 2007 · 20:36, 2 August 2007 · 17:08, 2 August 2007 · 17:07, 2 August 2007 · 17:04, 2 August 2007 · 17:00, 2 August 2007 · 16:58, 2 August 2007 · 16:56, 2 August 2007 · 16:56, 2 August 2007 · 16:49, 2 August 2007 · 16:47, 2 August 2007 · 16:46, 2 August 2007 · 16:45, 2 August 2007 · 16:33, 2 August 2007 · 16:32, 2 August 2007 · 16:32, 2 August 2007 · 16:31, 2 August 2007 · 16:30, 2 August 2007

SqueakBox was also logged in on this day, making two edits directly before and after, but not during Pol64's session:

· 21:24, 2 August 2007 · 16:21, 2 August 2007

Pol64 on 17 Aug:

· 23:25, 17 August 2007 · 23:22, 17 August 2007

SqueakBox was also logged in on this day, at a similar time, making two strings of edits that broke cleanly for those of Pol64. Here is a cropped sample:

· 23:57, 17 August 2007 · 23:51, 17 August 2007 · 23:49, 17 August 2007 · 23:37, 17 August 2007 · 23:35, 17 August 2007 · 23:06, 17 August 2007 · 23:04, 17 August 2007 · 23:01, 17 August 2007 · 23:00, 17 August 2007

Pol64 on 29 Aug:

· 18:24, 29 August 2007 · 18:23, 29 August 2007 · 18:18, 29 August 2007

Squeakbox's edits were related to Pol64's as per the 17th.

· 19:16, 29 August 2007 · 19:15, 29 August 2007 · 18:53, 29 August 2007 · 18:49, 29 August 2007 · 17:35, 29 August 2007 · 17:25, 29 August 2007

Pol64 on 31 Aug:

· 03:15, 31 August 2007 · 03:12, 31 August 2007

SqueakBox was logged in on the same day, at similar times:

· 02:07, 31 August 2007 · 02:07, 31 August 2007 · 02:06, 31 August 2007 · 02:05, 31 August 2007

Pol64 on 17 Sep (a):

· 16:05, 17 September 2007 · 15:58, 17 September 2007 · 15:42, 17 September 2007

SqueakBox posts another same day, same time session that breaks cleanly for Pol64's, with no overlap. Here is a cropped sample:

· 16:28, 17 September 2007 · 16:27, 17 September 2007 · 16:27, 17 September 2007 · 16:25, 17 September 2007 · 15:35, 17 September 2007 · 15:31, 17 September 2007 · 15:25, 17 September 2007 · 15:25, 17 September 2007 · 15:21, 17 September 2007 · 15:20, 17 September 2007

Pol64 on 17 Sep (b):

· 17:04, 17 September 2007

SqueakBox is again logged in at the same time (note, his edits either side of Pol64's are on the same talk page):

· 17:20, 17 September 2007 · 17:18, 17 September 2007 · 17:17, 17 September 2007 · 17:16, 17 September 2007 · 17:10, 17 September 2007 · 17:09, 17 September 2007 · 16:54, 17 September 2007 · 16:50, 17 September 2007 · 16:46, 17 September 2007

Pol64 on 17 Sep (c):

18:20, 17 September 2007

Again, SqueakBox is logged in within an hour of Pol64:

· 17:23, 17 September 2007 · 17:22, 17 September 2007 · 17:20, 17 September 2007 · 17:18, 17 September 2007 · 17:17, 17 September 2007

Pol64 on 21 Sep:

22:05, 21 September 2007

Again, SqueakBox is logged in at a similar time:

· 21:35, 21 September 2007 · 21:30, 21 September 2007 · 21:27, 21 September 2007 · 21:25, 21 September 2007 · 21:22, 21 September 2007

Pol64 on 22 Sep:

· 00:36, 22 September 2007 · 00:27, 22 September 2007

SqueakBox was logged in 3 hours before. SqueakBox is sometimes logged in at these times, though.

Pol64 on 24 Sep:

· 02:07, 24 September 2007 · 02:07, 24 September 2007 · 02:04, 24 September 2007

SqueakBox was not logged in within many hours of this session, but was active on this day. His sessions sometimes end at similar times.

Pol64 on 25 Sep:

· 00:27, 25 September 2007 · 00:21, 25 September 2007

SqueakBox posts strings of posts either side of this session. Here is a cropped sample:

· 00:59, 25 September 2007 · 00:40, 25 September 2007 · 00:36, 25 September 2007 · 00:08, 25 September 2007 · 00:08, 25 September 2007 · 00:07, 25 September 2007 · 00:06, 25 September 2007 · 00:05, 25 September 2007 · 00:05, 25 September 2007 · 00:04, 25 September 2007 · 00:04, 25 September 2007

Pol64 on 27 Sep:

· 23:20, 27 September 2007 · 23:18, 27 September 2007

SqueakBox previously made a long string of edits:

· 22:44, 27 September 2007 · 22:40, 27 September 2007 · 22:34, 27 September 2007 · 22:33, 27 September 2007 · 22:32, 27 September 2007 · 22:31, 27 September 2007 · 22:31, 27 September 2007 · 22:30, 27 September 2007 · 22:27, 27 September 2007 · 22:26, 27 September 2007 · 22:23, 27 September 2007 · 22:22, 27 September 2007 · 22:17, 27 September 2007 · 22:16, 27 September 2007 · 22:05, 27 September 2007 · 22:02, 27 September 2007 · 21:57, 27 September 2007 · 21:55, 27 September 2007 · 21:43, 27 September 2007 · 21:42, 27 September 2007 · 21:34, 27 September 2007 · 21:33, 27 September 2007 · 21:19, 27 September 2007 · 19:17, 27 September 2007 · 19:17, 27 September 2007 · 19:05, 27 September 2007 · 18:53, 27 September 2007 · 18:49, 27 September 2007 · 18:48, 27 September 2007 · 18:45, 27 September 2007 · 18:43, 27 September 2007 · 18:41, 27 September 2007 · 18:38, 27 September 2007

Interestingly, Pol64 also posts a long string of edits that adjoins SqueakBox's perfectly, but does not overlap:

· 18:16, 27 September 2007 · 18:09, 27 September 2007 · 17:44, 27 September 2007 · 17:43, 27 September 2007 · 17:42, 27 September 2007 · 17:34, 27 September 2007 · 17:27, 27 September 2007 · 17:23, 27 September 2007 · 17:03, 27 September 2007 · 17:01, 27 September 2007 · 16:58, 27 September 2007 · 16:54, 27 September 2007 · 16:53, 27 September 2007 · 16:51, 27 September 2007

Bear in mind that SqueakBox is in Guatemala and Pol64 is supposedly in London. Why are they always logged in at the same or similar times? Why do their sessions never overlap? Why do convenient gaps appear in SqueakBox's edit pattern, when Pol64 makes edits? Dyskolos 04:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

To me this looks like harrassment from pro pedophile activism supporters who clearly have a grudge against me as this is the third sockpuppet allegation within one week all acusing Pol64 of being my sock, the first two requests have been declined at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SqueakBox. While the first request was good faith I dont believe the second or this third repeating the same request is being made in good faith, while Dyklos recent contribs here and here and [1] also look like pure harrassment from a user who makes few contributions to the project and most of those related to paedophile issues.

The kind of typos I make are made by many users as they are typing and not spelling errors, while this time thing is ridiculous. I edit throughout the day every day from late morning to early evening, which is 7 hours later in England and many UK users edit at that time so it is clearly coincidence if there is a pattern at all and I really do not understand where her is coiming from with this timing issue but is being used to harrass. The only real question to me is whether Dyklos is 82.45.15.121, likely given that it was 82.45 who made the 2nd sockpupet allegation and invented this bizarre timing issue, SqueakBox 18:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 18:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get real. The three listed edits were requirements of the Sock process, not agentic harassment from myself. I decided to hand you in before being directed to make those edits. As usual, your accusations of a pro-pedophile agenda are unfounded, disgraceful and will doubtless only be given protection due to your own "good" agenda.

This is not the third accusation. Two different accusations were made on the Checkuser board, the second clearly building on the first in terms of evidence. I decided to build upon the complaints in the second by providing clear evidence of sockpuppetry and bringing these complaints to an appropriate board.

The typos you make are in fact very rare, at the frequency observed in both yourself and Pol64. They are also of a similar taxonomy, stemming from an inability to co-ordinate ones digits with ones keyboard, and an inability or unwillingness to account for this.

If you chose to read through the evidence provided (or actually understood the implications), you would now be defending yourself by explaining why such patterns have been replicated again and again. It isn't only timing, you see. It's co-ordination, and the pattern observed is typical of sockpuppets and masters who cannot understand the implications of laying down such edit patterns. The most recent example (27 Sep) was very revealing indeed. Dyskolos 19:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not make requests to harrass people, now stop it, because all yopu are doing is harrassment, besides which the check case is not finished and you can add evidence there, your wanting a third shot is clear evidence iof harrassment, and your evidence is lousy and pure specualtion (Pol edits at a time when I wasn't but often do being a classic [piece of rubbish), SqueakBox 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop throwing a tantrum over this. I've just had to revert those three userpage edits, because they violated the set process required in these cases. If you do that again, I'll be reporting you for disruption. I have started this case, because the evidence supplied relates to sockpuppetry, as opposed to a request for checkuser, which as you can see has effectively been closed by disinterested admin and an incidental checkuser which basically demonstrates that if you are Pol64, you are editing from a different IP. Dyskolos 19:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon. Pleasse stop trolling me as your tantrum allegations clearly are. You know you are harassing me because the claim has benn rejected twice in one week and allt he above alleged evidence shoul;d not be here and is nothing of the kind. Thyese case4s are not desifgned for one user to harrass another as you are doing to me. I know you don;t care about being blocked but behaviour is uncivil trolling, SqueakBox 19:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to apologise!? How can one be accused of having a tantrum? It is my opinion that you are loosing it, all the more with your recent attempts to delete the evidence against you! On the other hand, accusations of being an activist or even a pedophile are much more serious, as not only do they imply status as a person, but also a very powerful and dangerous social meaning. I will repeat again, that the only common thread in the claims (by three different users, may I add) is that you are Pol64. The first was a general complaint, the second listed specific abuses and kinds of evidence and now that you are cleared of operating Pol64's IPA, the third presents new, extracted evidence at a more appropriate venue (as since Pol64's IPA is a proxy, it is very possible that you could be in control of it). Something tells me that you are protesting just a little bit too much, here. Dyskolos 20:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bringin gup the bad faith assumptions and see where it gets you. I amlosing because you are trolling me, is that what you mean? Or is it just wishful thinking, ie you hope if you troll me long enough I will lose it. Lol. You are muddling Pol64 with Mike D78, hje was using proxies, Pol64 has not been shown to be using a proxy except in yoyur imagination. I am protesting cos your harrassment deserves that, SqueakBox 20:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is almost any kind of debate with you ultimately unproductive? I mentioned that you are "loosing it" as a mild way of suggesting that you can't cope with any challenge to your status. Where the "bad faith assumptions" are, I don't know (unless I extend my search to your often repeated "trolling", "harassment" and "pedophile activism" comments). The only bad faith that I would assume (if forced to decide) of you yourself, is that you are Pol64, and asociated socks. But isn't that what this case is all about?? Dyskolos 20:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, no internal process has proven that Pol64 is using a proxy, although my own investigation did confirm this. Dyskolos 20:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being silly, its a BT IP and no evidence it ios a proxy jusdt your slurs. Arer you mike as you and he are both up on proxies, doubltess yopu have been learning to cheat at wikipedia, SqueakBox 20:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many debates have you had with me. It makes you sound like you have had many in previous incarnations and are in fact a banned user yourself, everything you sau merely indicates that and yopu have not a scrap of evidence that I am Pol64, and nor am I. PPA has been infected with POV opushing advocates who have been banned and you are acting just like all the rest, SqueakBox 20:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I raise a valid point against you, and you use it against me! "He knows this, so he must be...". I personally have not had many debates with you, although I have been around long enough to back up my observations. Again, not looking at the evidence, are we? Dyskolos 20:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you provide some evidence I will look at it. I asked you the other day to provide difs for your bizarre edit timing allegations and you havent done so, indeed there is not a single diff on the evidence part of this page, SqueakBox 20:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if that's not a bad faith assumption, I don't know what is!

You did indeed ask the other editor to provide diffs. This editor responded correctly, stating that diffs were not needed for this kind of evidence. The reason is obvious. Diffs show a single edit. We are looking at edits in their context, and diffs show nothing except the edit itself. Therefore suggesting that diffs are required is a convenient way of getting around the obvious evidence of socking presented above, and in your contribution log(s). Dyskolos 20:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

These accounts have been the subject of investigation recently by both myself and checkuser Deskana. Pol64 is geographically unrelated to SqueakBox and does not edit from a proxy. There is no persuasive evidence of sockpuppetry and a lot of evidence rebutting it. Given the previous checkuser requests that have made this clear, this request seems to be an attempt at harassment rather than a genuine suspicion of sockpupptry. WjBscribe 20:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---