Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/X4n6/Archive

Evidence submitted by William S. Saturn
After harrassing me on my talk page, User:X4n6 makes a bogus post to ANI after filing out a bogus Request for Checkuser. Then the account Sexually Active vandalized the report after I edited it and began harrassing me on my talk page along with the account Umbrella corporation 33. Why would these accounts start harrassing me all of a sudden after I started being harrassed by X4n6? --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - X4n6 has not edited since the two accounts were blocked. Perhaps he is IP blocked. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So my alleged "socks" were both blocked - yet I'm still here. So much for your "theory". X4n6 (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties

 * It should be pretty obvious that this is just the latest abuse by an ed. who repeatedly shows a total disregard for the rules and policies of this forum - and in fact, enjoys making a total mockery of them. Within moments of me filing a complaint accusing User:William S. Saturn of sockpuppetry, he files an identical complaint against me. Coincidence much? Not really.


 * Nope. Just the latest, most embarrassing & transparent indication that this ed. has nothing but contempt for this forum and its policies. If there is a mechanism for handling frequent and blatant abusers like this ed., their use is completely justified in this case.


 * As for User:William S. Saturn's belief that I must be IP blocked? Hardly. But as it turns out, I'm not here 24/7. I have a life. I don't have time to be a sock either. Thank you. X4n6 (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you can't accept that you are wrong. As a result of this, you disrupted the project (not a forum) and wasted a countless number of editors' time. --William S. Saturn (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong again. The real problem is that you lied. Then you got caught in your lies. Then you tried to bully your lies into becoming the truth. Then you got caught in more lies to cover the original lies. Then you tried to bully people into believing those latest lies. Now you've failed completely on all counts, and all your lies have been exposed. Now hopefully you will finally get exactly what you deserve. That's all. X4n6 (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Spitfire (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC) I recommend a block on the accounts and  per duck (both made an edit which simply said "hello" to William S. Saturn, both have been harassing him, and both put retired on their pages once William S. Saturn told them of the sockpuppet case). However, the fact that X4n6's name in this report is I suspect due to a knee jerk reaction to them filing a report against William S. Saturn, and I fail to see enough evidence here to show that the two accounts Sexually Active and Umbrella corporation 33 are being operated by him/her. SpitfireTally-ho! 06:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for seeing through the latest ridiculous charge of William S. Saturn that I am responsible for other accounts. Just as you noted, his complaint is transparent and retaliatory. I accused him of sockpuppetry because I believe it is true. He accused me - in a weak effort to "settle the score." Given the circumstances, (my infrequent visits here, versus his being blocked for 3RR violations just a week ago), it's not a very original complaint either. But it does speak volumes about the accuser. X4n6 (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Then why else would they be harrassing me? --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) User:Umbrella corporation 33 is clearly being used abusively. Without judgment on whether X4n6 is the controlling user, the account has been blocked indefinitely. —C.Fred (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Spitfire's recommendation, I have also blocked User:Sexually Active for the same reason. —C.Fred (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

for CU on to search for connection to  and  SpitfireTally-ho! 08:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While the link to is, I can say that the following accounts are all ✅ to be the same editor;




 * - A l is o n  ❤ 08:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * - I need a second checkuser opinion on another possibly related account here - A l is o n  ❤ 08:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alison. Just to make you aware that if there is a link to x4n6 here then its bound to be slightly distorted, as they (would) have been subject to a autoblock when and  were blocked, and their IP would have to of subsequently changed to allow them to continue editing. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but in this case, they're geographically quite far apart - A l is o n  ❤ 08:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you both for clearing me of this ridiculous charge. Now can either of you please checkuser my original complaint against User:William S. Saturn? After all, his complaint was just vindictive retaliation for my filing that one. Many thanks. X4n6 (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, this case is still pending, as it has proven slightly trick to determine whether or not you were socking. However, Saturn's case has been checked by a check user and it turned out that he was not socking. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 10:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. May I ask if the Saturn case review would also reveal if the two deleted accounts that Saturn complained about were also his? It does seem rather curious that they both would have been opened right in the midst of all this, just to "harrass" him. Just covering all the bases. Thanks again. Best, X4n6 (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Marking as closed. In any case, we're done here. –MuZemike 19:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC) SPIclose


 * Please don't. This is still on hold. While I can say that the information relating to is  and we're finished with that account, there is something else here that needs work. Right now, myself and Dominic are working this case still -  A l is o n  ❤ 19:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps someone can kindly advise me of what's going on here and why the delay? You've established that the two accounts that I was alleged to have socked and harrassed someone with were not mine, as you blocked them with no effect on me, and you've also established that both were geographically quite far from me. Wasn't that the complaint? I also asked that you investigate the user who initiated this retaliatory complaint, to determine if he had harrassed himself with those accounts, and that request appears to have been ignored as that original complaint was closed within hours, while this one has dragged into days. So really what else is left regarding my account I wonder? Or does your work no longer include me? Thanks for the clarification. X4n6 (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Our work no longer includes you, 'sokay :) However, there's something else going on under here that we discovered, so we're not quite done with the overall case yet. Myself and User:Dominic are still going here ... - A l is o n  ❤ 01:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thank you. X4n6 (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Alison. I wasn't aware that there were still loose ends here. –MuZemike 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * - found and blocked a number of other socks - A l is o n  ❤ 07:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)