User talk:GroomingVictim: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:24, 28 January 2008

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia from SqueakBox! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here is a list of useful links that I have compiled:

Again, welcome, SqueakBox 04:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, brother. GrooV 07:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sniff, sniff

I smell a single purpose account. How long before someone accuses you of being someone's sockpuppet? 70.123.189.59 00:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give it some time. If the edit times don't coincide as well as Pol64:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/SqueakBox_(3rd)

...this is almost certainly not a sock. 82.45.15.121 08:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No! I am a different kind of editor. I am not another commissioned anti-pedophile activist, but a child advocate. I advise people not to take part in anti-pedophile activism. I better make this clear. GrooV 18:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious

You claim falsely to be withholding suspicion while actually making trolling comments re me. It haS AMPLY PROVEN BY YOUR BUDDIES NTHAT i AM NOT sQUEAK, PRAY WHO DO YOU KNOW THINK i AM? Pol64 (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do not make claims like this in an edit summary. if you have suspicions try WP:RCU. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any "claims" in the statement "withholding suspicions over this account for now". If anything, it was a statement of no claims. VigilancePrime (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC) :-)[reply]

Suspicions

Regarding this edit, and it seems it goes for some other edits aswell: If you are not willing to make your suspicions explicit, maybe it's best if you don't say you have suspicions at all. It does not make open discussion easier if you claim you have suspicions about something, but don't state those suspicions. I'm struggeling here to express what I mean exactly, but I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a blatant personal attack, nothing more, and nothing of interest. I have had my own suspicions that you are the sock of a banned user, you are clearly a single purpose account and making silly accusations against other users, promoting paranoia etc, is just what i would expect. its a classic PPA trick to pretend to be a ped victim and then support pedophilia, indeed most pedophiles were abused as children but it is still a ploy. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be greatly appreciated if you would care to provide references to times when I have accused editors of various ills. If you would like me to make my suspicions known, you will be unsurprised to know that I suspect that you may be the operator of another account which shows very similar behaviour on the a-cs article. As pointed out by Digital Emotion, the techniques used to do this are much easier than some would let on. One method involves using a very simple, open source piece of software to use someone else's IP, usually with their consent. For someone such as yourself who works offshore for a company located in another country, the final effect of this could look very convincing indeed in a checkuser enquiry. And I have to say that whilst I can't outright accuse you, what evidence has been presented in the curiously rejected checkusers and sock checks on yourself, verges on the conclusive.

May you also pay more attention to the reason behind my username, and how it relates to (cautious, nonhysterical) child advocacy, possibly by reading my user page. I am willing to answer questions regarding this and why I feel that providing as much unbiased material as is possible on these subjects supports these ends, as long as you do not end up acting the fool and accusing me of folly such as "PPA". GrooV (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh! There is no way I can defend myself against your accusations as you express them, really, is there? You are, I take it, talking about Remote administration, which is an article I have edited. I have long had concerns that people are using this to avoid bans from the pedophile articles. The only solution would be to try to change RCU but I won't be doing that. But for the record I do not and have not used socks on the pedophile articles, or to cheat on wikipedia (running 2 accounts to have 2 viewpoints on a subject) nor do I know anyone who would allow me to use their computer for said activities. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could explain the evidence put forward in the administrator forums. But if I were you, I'd leave well alone. GrooV (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? There is no evidence, which forums? The problem with such accusations is that nobody could defend themselves against them, not just me. What RA may explain is my own reluctance to post to RCU re suspected socks on the ped articles, but to be honest the idea that Pol was/is a sockpuppet of mine is ridiculous anyway (unless he or she had turned out to be in the same Caribbean country as me, which isn't the case). Thanks, SqueakBox 18:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1

2

You just explained why the idea is far from ridiculous, :rolleyes: GrooV (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is ridiculous and I would point out that bringing up these accusations yet again is no more than trolling (and particularly were you to do so other than on your talk page). And the pages you refer to never provided any evidence whatsoever. I never got my head around the alleged similarity in timing patterns and assumed at the time it was mere trolling (rightly as it turns out) and the only other evidence offered, bad typos like a p for an o (a bit like the teh typo) and the fact that Pol and I are both British wasn't evidence at all. Now you are claiming that because I have professional computing skills I could subvert and therefore I must have done so. Well lots of people here have computer skills, and I won't apologise for being a competent professional. I am in email contact with Pol, as I am with a number of users, and that is it. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look a little closer at the evidence put forward, and you will realise that I am not "trolling". How do you explain so many repeated "coincidences" in edit times, not to mention the constant question mark hanging over the typing styles of the two accounts?

Again, you would be doing yourself a lot of good by not responding. The more you protest, the more I will drag up on this page, because when I suspect cheating, nothing angers me more than an audacous one. GrooV (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, this is wikipedia and you do not threaten me to not respond to your trolling accusations. There never was a timing pattern though as I tend to edit wikipedia when I am online and I am online a lot so I often edit over 8-12 hours 7 days a week. Probably a lot of timing coincidences with you as well, though I have yet to actually see this alleged pattern. Are you sure you were not the anon 82 ip making the ridiculous accusations. And your latest post certainly makes me think that you are trolling with this issue, I advise you to drop it. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you prefer British spelling too. Does that mean I accuse you of being BLueRibbon (who admitted online in November to having an undetected sock account to avoid his indefinite block)? No it doesn't, so please don't accuse me on flimsy evidence either. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SqueakBox, if you could look at the situation holistically for a moment, you will be able to understand that I have not made an accusation towards you. It's just that I, like many others past and present have rather strong suspicions that you may have the passwords to more than one account - a charge that you have flat out accused others of on multiple occasions, and in one case if I remember correctly, verifiably in error. Unlike yourself, I would personally be very careful before raising suspicions about fellow editors, even those that you have raised right here - backed up with nothing other than agreement on one issue, an agreement shared with others.

It should also be understood (for your own peace of mind) that I am not threatening you in any way by suggesting that more information will be revealed on this page, if you continue to contest its validity. If you see this as a threat (possibly due to what you have to hide), I would advise you again, not to comment further. GrooV (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that it is because of the accusations I have made (and if I got one wrong I got 10-15 right) and the subsequent blocking of accounts that is behind these accusations, and the attempt to explain, say, that Pol is editing in the UK by accusing me of remote administration is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I haven't said I have never used another account (I was Scuiquifox first, for instance) but I have certainly never used another account to edit the ped articles nor have I ever used any kind of proxy to mask my location (and using remote administration would be using a proxy, just not an open one). Unless one can find a bureaucrat with a good memory it would certainly be impossible to compare any current user with BLueRibbon on RCU because the records (rightly) get destroyed after 3 months. But you certainly are right that it is possible with a minimum of skill (but with a friendly person in another location) to mask one's IP, and it would be much less detectable than using open proxies (which is what caught MikeD78 out) but what would the solution be? To abandon RCU would be giving an open door to sockpuppetry. Anyway that is a developer/policy maker issue, my problems (as far as wikipedia go) are NPOV and BLP based. BTW I don't feel threatened by you and keeping my peace of mind on wikipedia is something I learnt to do a while ago, I wouldn't be bale to hack it here otherwise. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to land squarely on both sides of this one.

GrooV, I'm not seeing anything in the vicinity of convincing evidence that Pol is a sockpuppet of Squeak or vice-versa. It's near-impossible to tell the difference between two editors who have very simpatico views and a case of sock/meat-puppetry.
Squeak, it's not completely truthful to deny (in this context) your use of sockpuppets without including your previous use of a sockpuppet to avoid a block. --SSBohio 03:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thoughts on name

How's about SurvivedGrooming ? Just because I dislike the word 'victim', and think that anyone who lived through abuse, or attempted grooming, is a survivor! Your sig could then be 'Sugar' :) Merkinsmum 18:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I am open to questions regarding my strange choice of username. It is actually quite an interesting story that integrates my opinions on methods of child protection and terminology concerning such".

In fact, unlike what SqueakBox suggests, my name does not relate to any abusive relationship that I was involved in. I do however dislike the common terminology of victimhood, and unlike you, survivorhood as well. Another concept that I dislike is that of Child Grooming, whose shoddy and prejudicial application put me through hell and almost ended my participation with a major UK childrens' charity.

I'm guessing that you can now figure the reasons behind my username and why I so often participate on these articles. GrooV (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adult sex with kids

Despite the games with creating empty sections and rushed paragraphs, the point is it is a content fork - it is the same content as can be found on other articles, all it does is summarize that same information in a different way. Whether it is pro-anything is irrelevant. If you want to present a different version of the text of some articles (for instance, the articles that represent all of the main sections of this article) then work on editing those articles. (PS - The above is a representation of how a new title or header can be used to reframe content. You should perhaps pursue such reframing on the existing articles, rather than creating a whole new article to present the same subject in a different way.) ^Avruchtalk 19:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a justification when a lot of well researched, original material has already been deleted without consent by the very people who are now pushing through this delete vote. I trust that you have not seen any of the article copies in userspace, nor any of the original material that already exists on the article itself.

Nor is this a justification when the article itself is fundamentally neutral, and the older article represents a theoretical fork. If both articles were copies, and any article was to go, it would have to be CSA in this sense. GrooV (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brick

I just noticed your comment on the ACS deletion page, and I think you might want to remove the brick-through-the-window bit. I'm not an admin, just wanted to leave a friendly suggestion. Antelan ^talk 21:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been known for people who have been in some way outed as paedophiles, to recieve a brick. I was not implying that this was an overt intention of Wikisposure, but these people are still happy to drive a man to kill himself. GrooV (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you by any chance seen the editors who spew "paedophile" this and that towards any editing that they dislike on articles such as ACS? They get away with it because they can. With some editors identifying publically, I feel that this puts them in danger. GrooV (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't call anyone a pedophile here, I call people supporters of pro pedophile advocacy, or occasionally pedophile advocates (I am thinking of A.Z.). Xavier got blocked indefinitely for calling someone here a pedophile. I would also say that my understanding of PA and people like Ashford and McClellan is that they are proud to be pedophiles much as others are proud to be users of cannabis, and that being a pedophile is not a criminal offence. I still haven't forgotten watching a UK march on the telly a few years back with anti-pedophile demonstrators, one of whom had a banner saying "send them all to Latin America". That person should have been arrested for breach of the peace, people who throw bricks through other peoples windows basing themselves on their own ignorance deserve to be dealt severely by the law, there is never an excuse for that kind of vigilantism. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Please avoid reposting personal attacks made by other people even for the purpose of discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charity

Which UK charity do you work for? Pol64 (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of your above behaviour and more, I would be a fool to reveal any more personally identifying information to you. I revealed much of this information before you (or SqueakBox, hard to remember) accused me of something that I would not want to bring up again, especially keeping in mind past experiences with accusations and the consequences that they can bring. GrooV (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never even met squeakbox, just exchangeged a few emails withn him. Why would you confuse me with him? ahh, its called trolling isnt it? Silly me. Basically I think you are lying and do not work for a UK charity at all but perhaps not. I think you think if I knew who you were you would lose your job. And if you are, as you claim, in the anti-pedophile activism world as a plant, then I think you are right. I'll do some research anyway. I, unlike Squeak, do have some contacts and am interested in policing. Pol64 (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed that I am an anti pedophile activist, in fact I have distanced myself from that label on multiple occasions. You are confusing somebody who has worked in child advocacy with APaA, which is almost exclusively a hate driven hobby, based on very little real concern for young people.

By the way, "Plucky old Sleuth on a mission" really doesn't suit someone with your apparent level of intellect. Putting your authoritarian fantasy aside, we could really do without aspiring crackers trawling through an encyclopedia as if it were a pedophiles' playground. GrooV (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, young person, I never got As for intellect but I do know how to police and I will be investigating. With any luck (yours) you were lying, eh? And if you think that we would identify you and not take action, well keep believing my UK charitable (as in pedophile loving) friend. Pol64 (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:24, 28 January 2008 view source Pol64 (talk \| contribs) 211 edits →‎Charity ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:24, 28 January 2008 view source Pol64 (talk \| contribs) 211 edits m →‎Charity Next edit →
Line 148:		Line 148:
	::By the way, "Plucky old Sleuth on a mission" '''really''' doesn't suit someone with your apparent level of intellect. Putting your authoritarian fantasy aside, we could '''really''' do without aspiring crackers trawling through an encyclopedia as if it were a pedophiles' playground. [[User:GroomingVictim\|GrooV]] ([[User talk:GroomingVictim#top\|talk]]) 00:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)		::By the way, "Plucky old Sleuth on a mission" '''really''' doesn't suit someone with your apparent level of intellect. Putting your authoritarian fantasy aside, we could '''really''' do without aspiring crackers trawling through an encyclopedia as if it were a pedophiles' playground. [[User:GroomingVictim\|GrooV]] ([[User talk:GroomingVictim#top\|talk]]) 00:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

	Ok, young person, I never got As for intellect but I do know how to police and I will be investigating. With any luck (yours) you were lying, eh? And if you think that we would identify you and not take action, well keep believing my UK charitable (as in pedophile loving) friend[[User:Pol64\|Pol64]] ([[User talk:Pol64\|talk]]) 00:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)		Ok, young person, I never got As for intellect but I do know how to police and I will be investigating. With any luck (yours) you were lying, eh? And if you think that we would identify you and not take action, well keep believing my UK charitable (as in pedophile loving) friend. [[User:Pol64\|Pol64]] ([[User talk:Pol64\|talk]]) 00:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)