Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seguro64/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * 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:. After I reverted the comment and pinged admins involved in the original block, 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): , , , , , and (cf. Seguro64's comment here in addition to the comment I cited above ).

This second user, Salaman77, has only ever contributed to one other page –– that of the obscure actress Charlie Spradling: 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)  and that Seguro64 had been contributing to this page just before  and after  Salaman77 had done so in August 2020. Going back further, I found that Seguro64 was actually the creator of the page:

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)


 * I will also note that Seguro64 has now started an apparently WP:POINTy SPI request alleging that I am a sockpuppet of Rsk6400: 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). 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). 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)
 * 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)
 * I reject all accusations because they are baseless. I would like to express that "Generalrelative" merely has weak circumstantial evidence that's not even remotely solid and it's only based on coincidence. For example, he claims that because the other user (Salaman77) and I contributed to Charlie Spradling that means we're the same but if you take a closer look, you can see that a) our edit summaries are different in terms of style (See: ), b) Other users also contributed to the page, c) We never even edited the page the same day, judging by the history, and d) We didn't even do the same kind of edits.


 * He also claims that because there is some discussion recently in George Floyd's talk page about his participation in erotic productions then that must mean it must be me because I was indefinitely blocked from George Floyd in mid 2020. Those are two separate issues. First off, I never posted anything about about erotic productions in the talk page, the other user did, and a user being blocked from a main page and a user discussing something in the talk page are different issues. Discussion about the issue has been going since the page existed. It's a common topic that has been brought up multiple times (See:       ). Doesn't mean all those are me.


 * What's more, coinciding with a user in certain pages is not a rare thing. Twice is simply coincidence, a pattern starts at three. Here are the only two times we have coincided in the same page (and not even doing the same things). Literally twice. There is no pattern here to speak of. What's curious is that the user "Generalrelative" has coincided in the same pages with the user User:Rsk6400 a total of twenty-five (25!) times (See: Rsk6400 and Generalrelative) and just considering April 2021 multiple of those have been aiming for the same goals and topics and some in a matter of minutes or seconds (See: Interaction between Generalrelative and Rsk6400 in April 2021). That's not a concidence, but a pattern. As an additional note, you can see his sockpuppet investigation here: Sockpuppet_investigations/Rsk6400.


 * Personally, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that he's accusing me of doing something he himself is likely commiting. Seguro64 (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

As response to this "Generalrelative" user's second response, 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:. 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 some other 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. Seguro64 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅, . ST47 (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This WP:SPA appeared days after Seguro64 and their sock Salaman77 were indef blocked for sockpuppetry: All of this new user's edits (with the exception of a single character added to their talk page) have pushed the same POV about the use of the word "charges" at Talk:George Floyd as was being pushed by Seguro64 at the time of their block. E.g. compare MauriceHardened's edits, and  with Seguro64's ,  and. Looks like a WP:DUCK for evading sanctions.

And honestly, given the furious energy with which Seguro64 prevaricated during their previous sockpuppet investigation, I figured it would only be a matter of time until they tried to return like this. Generalrelative (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2021 (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

 * ✅. This SPI can be closed...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)