Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antonian Sapphire/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This sticks out to me, short version: Why are two different accounts both really into one small city in the UK (Sunderland) and defending/obscuring China's human rights issues? Long version, it gets weirder: Antonian Sapphire first edited in October 2013 and ceased editing in July 2020. Sunderland Renaissance's first edit is August 2018 but they don't start seriously editing until December 2020. There is massive direct overlap (extremely massive when you take into account that Sunderland Renaissance has only 321 edits) between the two when it comes to Sunderland but *no* direct overlap when it comes to Chinese human rights edits... However both accounts spend a large amount of time in the space, for example Sapphire's attempt to discredit Adrien Zenz (one of the most significant figures in research into the Uyghur genocide) and Renaissance's scrubbing of the Uyghur genocide from Genocide denial. Or compare Sapphire trying to get Li-Meng Yan deleted (Articles for deletion/Li-Meng Yan) with Renaissance whitewashing China Global Television Network. Their use of edit summaries is also awfully similar as can be seen at. Anyway I'm 99% sure I'm right but I would appreciate more eyes and perhaps a more sophisticated set of tools. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I will also note that both are not just interested in Sunderland, both have contributed numerous self shot cellphone images of the area etc. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Self admitted previous account by the user in question, with user page now updated to reflect that transparency--Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The account in question has likewise not operated since 2020, and was not used for deceptive or manipulative purposes


 * Per WP:SOCK, A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place against the old account. It also notes that users should not use their new account to return to topic areas, disputes, editing patterns, or behaviors previously identified as problematic or to use the account to evade scrutiny. Block log on is clean, I don't see anything on Arbitration enforcement log, and the original account doesn't appear to have been given a sanction on AN(I).  I'm getting nothing from the editor interaction analyzer either that would show that they're editing on the same pages at the same time., were the accounts getting involved in the same topic areas at around the same time, albeit on different pages? If so, could you provide diffs of this behavior? — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not just same pages, same sections on the same page during the same period. Also note that they didn't make a clean start "If you decide to make a fresh start and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, simply stop using the old account and create a new one that becomes the only account you use." as they edited from both accounts for two years. Also note that they didn't only make a sock in 2018 they got their main account renamed from User:TF92 to Antonian Sapphire. They also explicitly denied denied being a "sleeper account" earlier today[] which would appear to be exactly what they are, even if they're now claiming to have a legitimate use for the sleeper account, they said "I have been accused of being a "sleeper account"- but this is false as I have a long term consistent pattern of constructive editing on a dedicated and unique field of topics. Otherwise, I have nothing to hide." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * What you have identified here is legitimate efforts in building up a page, and I am happy with the contributions I have made on a long term to that (non-controversial) article. In order to prove WP:SOCK you would need to show that I am either a) vandalizing it b) coordinating an edit war against another user c) manipulating a discussion on it d) evading a block or a ban, but it shows neither. You are really clutching straws with this and it feels strongly like you have a vendetta against me--Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You have provided no answer for why you used two accounts to contribute to the same topic areas for two years. Thats not a vendetta, thats just asking for an answer. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to openly admit that indeed is my former account but is not a violation of WP:SOCK because it has not been used for nearly two years. I moved on from that account because I was doxxed on it previously. The accounts have not been used in a coordinated, superficial or deceptive way- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is two years between the creation of Sunderland Renaissance and when you stopped using Antonian Sapphire. You can't have two active accounts at the same time but you did. We're talking about something on the order of 200 edits before you actually abandoned Antonian Sapphire. That is coordinated, superficial, and deceptive. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * In order to establish a violation of WP:SOCK you must present specific evidence as to how I used both accounts in tandem in order to deceive, manipulate or gain the upper hand in a specific dispute or debate, presenting them as different identities. Simply having another account is not in fact a violation. As I have done neither and been happy to admit this, there is no violation or deception at all. You are clutching straws with an account that hasn't been used for years. Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that you used both accounts to edit the same topic area at the same time I think you have some explaining to do still. Which of the Legitimate uses listed at WP:SOCKLEGIT are you claiming that the Sunderland Renaissance account exists under? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Per WP:SOCKLEGIT I cite privacy reasons as the reason behind moving account, as a troll had doxed my personal identity previously. "Editing the same topic area at the same time" is a false claim as no illegitimate edits were made. This is part of your POV pushing crusade and is in blatant bad faith--Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * When were you doxxed? In 2018 or 2020? Your story doesn't make sense, why edit from both accounts for two years if you were doxxed on one? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
See Sockpuppet investigations/Sunderland Renaissance.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * CU - Antonian Sapphire is  and Sunderland Renaissance has already admitted that it's their account anyway. The alleged violations of the sockpuppetry policy happened almost two years ago, so a sanction at this time would not serve any preventative purpose. Much of this report seems to deal with conduct issues that would be better addressed at a venue other than SPI. Closing without action from a SPI perspective. Spicy (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
previously made a (now-archived) sockpuppetry report involving this master and sock. At that time, the SPI was closed without action by, but in the meantime the sock has been arbcom blocked. As such, I think it would be best to block the sockmaster as well as the sock.

If additional evidence beyond the previous thread provided by Horse Eye's Back is needed to connect the users, I am happy to provide it in an email to the checkuser team. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I see no point in blocking an account that has not edited in over two years. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)