Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seguro64
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)
- Just to be clear, in response to Seguro64's comment below, by
ongoing inflammatory contributions
I am referring to the persistent discussion of Floyd's alleged history in pornography, not the pedantry about what constitutes minor charges. The latter is annoying but it doesn't cross any red lines. Generalrelative (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, in response to Seguro64's comment below, by
- I will also note that Seguro64 has now started an apparently WP:POINTy SPI request alleging that I am a sockpuppet of Rsk6400: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rsk6400. For the record I am not. Generalrelative (talk) 03:03, 26 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)
- @Seguro64: Your statement is a little hard to follow, but I am interpreting it as
an admission that Salaman77 is your account, and your claim is that using that account was not improper because you are not blocked from editing those talk pages from your main account. This is not correct. Especially since you have active sanctions related to those articles, this is a violation of the sockpuppetry policy as avoiding scrutiny (see WP:SCRUTINY). Using multiple accounts in this manner splits your editing history and makes it difficult for the community to track your edits in the event that it needs to review your conduct, and it also gives the impression that the Salaman77 is a different person from Seguro64. I consider myself somewhat WP:INVOLVED on George Floyd-related articles, so I am going to "recuse" myself from handling this case directly, but in my view, at minimum the Salaman77 account should be blocked indefinitely. Mz7 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)- Hmm, I'm reading your statement again, and I'll retract what I said above—it doesn't seem like you're admitting that Salaman77 was your account. I would respectfully ask that you reconsider your position here: for the reasons I stated above, this would be a violation of the sockpuppetry policy if that account is yours, and you may be blocked if you are indeed using multiple accounts in this manner. Mz7 (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
As an additional response to this "Generalrelative" user, I would like to remind him that talks about George Floyd's participation in erotic productions has been a common discussion multiple times in the Talk Page since the article has existed. Taken from the archive, see for example: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. That doesn't mean I'm all those users. I'm indefinitely blocked from editing George Floyd since mid 2020 but as explained in the original response above, the admins have allowed me to keep having conversation in the Talk Page, an opportunity which I haven't really used that much. I am already blocked from the main article but I would say that I disagree that users discussing an ignored fact in the talk page in an educated manner is "inflammatory" just because someone disagrees with the thing being discussed. Nor is it wrong to ask pertinent questions in a page dedicated to discussion. I understand the preoccupations of all those users. All that matters is the aim for a fair representation of the man's life. What's more is that, essentially people are imply replying with arguments to what other people write there. Seguro64 (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)