Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seguro64: Difference between revisions
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''</small> |
<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''</small> |
||
Hello, Seguro64 here, I was indeed indefinitely blocked from editing [[Killing of George Floyd]] and [[George Floyd]] by the administrator [[User:El C]] last year but I was ''never'' blocked from editing the Talk Page for either article, so I have every right to add to the discussion there. I posted a topic on the George Floyd talk page which was deleted in a matter of minutes. Later, the user Originalcola added a new topic about his concerns surrounding the language used about "minor charges" and I added to such discussion because I thought it was a legitimate concern regarding the blatant euphemisms used (See: [[Talk:George_Floyd#Felonies_and_%22various_minor_charges%22]]) |
Hello, Seguro64 here, I was indeed indefinitely blocked from editing [[Killing of George Floyd]] and [[George Floyd]] by the administrator [[User:El C]] last year but I was ''never'' blocked from editing the Talk Page for either article, so I have every right to add to the discussion there. I posted a topic on the George Floyd talk page which was deleted in a matter of minutes (I didn't start any another topic after that). Later, the user "Originalcola" added a new topic about his concerns surrounding the language used about "minor charges" and I added to such discussion because I thought it was a legitimate concern regarding the blatant euphemisms used (See: [[Talk:George_Floyd#Felonies_and_%22various_minor_charges%22]]). My approach was to simply add to the existing discussion there within the boundaries of logic, reason, and truth. I don't see how discussing the very facts of the law and the language used in the article is "inflammatory" (unless someone has personal feelings on the topic rather than aiming for the facts). |
||
Also, I'm not circumventing any block or avoiding any sanctions because a) I'm contributing in a page where I have every right to post in, and b) I'm not editing pages where I'm blocked from for obvious reasons. For the same reasons, the user accusing me, "Generalrelative", doesn't have any solid ground to accuse me of avoiding sanctions. |
Also, I'm not circumventing any block or avoiding any sanctions because a) I'm contributing in a page where I have every right to post in, and b) I'm not editing pages where I'm blocked from for obvious reasons. For the same reasons, the user accusing me, "Generalrelative", doesn't have any solid ground to accuse me of avoiding sanctions. |
Revision as of 22:10, 25 April 2021
Seguro64
- Seguro64 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Populated account categories: confirmed
25 April 2021
– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.
Suspected sockpuppets
- Salaman77 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Last summer Seguro64 was blocked from editing George Floyd protests and Killing of George Floyd for disruption surrounding this user's insistence on including mention of Floyd's alleged history in pornography. Yesterday this user repeated the same allegation at Talk:George Floyd: [1]. After I reverted the comment and pinged admins involved in the original block [2], an WP:SPA appeared that mirrored the same comments (not just the allegation itself but the insistence that this allegation be compared with Floyd's Hip Hop career): [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8] (cf. Seguro64's comment here [9] in addition to the comment I cited above [10]).
This second user, Salaman77, has only ever contributed to one other page –– that of the obscure actress Charlie Spradling: [11] When I looked at the edit history of that page I noticed that the most recent edit was by Seguro64 (i.e. the suspected sockmaster here) [12] and that Seguro64 had been contributing to this page just before [13] and after [14] Salaman77 had done so in August 2020. Going back further, I found that Seguro64 was actually the creator of the page: [15]
The double coincidence here is highly suspicious, especially given that Charlie Spradling is an obscure page with fewer than 30 watchers. Looks like a WP:DUCK for avoiding scrutiny and evasion of possible sanctions with regard to their ongoing inflammatory contributions at Talk:George Floyd. Generalrelative (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Hello, Seguro64 here, I was indeed indefinitely blocked from editing Killing of George Floyd and George Floyd by the administrator User:El C last year but I was never blocked from editing the Talk Page for either article, so I have every right to add to the discussion there. I posted a topic on the George Floyd talk page which was deleted in a matter of minutes (I didn't start any another topic after that). Later, the user "Originalcola" added a new topic about his concerns surrounding the language used about "minor charges" and I added to such discussion because I thought it was a legitimate concern regarding the blatant euphemisms used (See: Talk:George_Floyd#Felonies_and_"various_minor_charges"). My approach was to simply add to the existing discussion there within the boundaries of logic, reason, and truth. I don't see how discussing the very facts of the law and the language used in the article is "inflammatory" (unless someone has personal feelings on the topic rather than aiming for the facts).
Also, I'm not circumventing any block or avoiding any sanctions because a) I'm contributing in a page where I have every right to post in, and b) I'm not editing pages where I'm blocked from for obvious reasons. For the same reasons, the user accusing me, "Generalrelative", doesn't have any solid ground to accuse me of avoiding sanctions.
What's more, this user accusing me, "Generalrelative", has already tried accusing me of "disruption" and other things to admins User:Yamla and User:El C. Yamla consulted admin El C and El C ultimately said that it was alright for me to add to the discussion on the George Floyd Talk Page. He said (April 25, 2021), and I quote "I don't think it rises to the level of enforcement at this time." (See: User_talk:El_C#Seguro64,_George_Floyd). What the admin meant is that my recent contributions don't justify a block (or any other enforcing measurement) from the talk page. This verdict clearly didn't give "Generalrelative" any satisfaction so now he's trying to attack me for absurd claims about avoiding sanctions via a sockpuppet. He's yet to present evidence that I allegedly edited the pages where I'm blocked from using another account and that I interacted at all with a supposed sockpuppet in a discussion.
So, in short, if I didn't avoid sanctions using another account to edit the pages where I'm blocked from (that is Killing of George Floyd and George Floyd but NOT their respective talk pages) and I didn't engage in a discussion with the alleged other account, then I don't think such a severe investigation is required. Seguro64 (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)