User:SaturnsRings27 blocked as a sockpuppet
I checked w:User:SaturnsRings27’s contribution history which is quite short, and I do not understand why the user was blocked as a sock-puppet on en.wikipedia. It was my understanding that editors are considered sock-puppets only if they intend to mislead.
User:SaturnsRings27 made only 94 edits during his relatively short tenure at wikipedia. I can only see 70 of those edits, but you as an Admin can easily check the deleted 24.
I noticed that the sock-puppet investigation was originally erroneously filed as w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tomwsulcer (User: Tomwsulcer is a good faith contributor) and was wandering if the blocking of User:SaturnsRings27 was also a mistake. Would you kindly look into this?
I have no connection whatsoever to this user. I only noticed them because their last 5 contributions were to a page I started back in 2011. I have seen too many babies thrown out with the bathwater, so decided to try and find out if this particular user was justly blocked. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Please ping me
- Hi Ottawahitech. I appreciate your interest in checking on this investigation, and you're right that users do sometimes get tied up by sockpuppetry investigations erroneously. However, in this case the answer is no, blocking SaturnsRings27 was not a mistake. CheckUser evidence confirmed that they were part of a group of accounts being used in contravention of English Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy, and all of those accounts were blocked on that project. The logs of CheckUser activity are only accessible to a handful of trusted users because they contain private information; I don't have access myself but I asked another user who does, and they advised that there is high confidence in this particular result. There's not really anything else I can do here, but let me know if you have any more questions. Ivanvector (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ivanvector, I noticed you're a clerk and I will like to start a complain against Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning, Lorstaking, D4iNa4 and Raymond3023 who I have noticed have a odd-history of cooperation and supporting each other just like they tried to do recently at w:Talk:Adam's bridge which warned admins against. However, since I'm blocked on Wikipedia I can't make the complain. On Adam's bridge they constantly kept questioning other editors and harassing them. Either they're socks or there is definitely some coordination. Most of these people have little contribution to Wikipedia asides from reverting vandals or whom they don't agree with.
They even have a similar manner of harassing others by complaining who they don't agree with; like Capitlas00's SPI against me, Lorstaking's SPI against Ms Sarah Welch or MBlaze Lightning's SPI against JosephusofJerusalem. Needless to say some of these are purely retaliatory, their problem with JosephusofJerusalem is well-known and they were even topic-banned. Capitals00 reported me because I added information about Aryan-Dasa conflict at w:Indo-Aryan migration which he didn't like.
And they have often supported each other against the user they complain, like Lorstaking against edits I added on pages he gave no contribution to - Slavery in India  , Child Marriage in India . He did gave some contribution to Indo-Aryan migration but repeats similar reasons and came out of the blue to support MBlaze and Capitals00 - . Even their reasons to revert are quite same. Raymond3023 removed the complaints against Capitals00 by Wikiexplorer13 as pointed out by Sitush . Capitals00 against Ms Sarah Welch on her talk page, the whole group against JosephusofJerusalem etc. The latter two are all well-known so I don't think I need diffs for it. In each of these cases, they never seem to have been informed but they show up to support each other except the ban that
Even their way of complaining is similar by picking out select words and purported similarities between sentences even though they may be commonly-spoken words.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, I won't go into too much detail since this is not a SPI. All edits of these people will need to be checked to find out their similarities, MBlaze Lightning has gone a revert spree recently so it might be difficult but it my be solved by using the editor interaction tool. I asked Meta-Wiki stewards if a behavioral SPI against them and they stated that it can only be done on Wikipedia. So I'm asking you if there is any way.
Is there a possibility that you can start an investigation without me complaining at SPI which I can't since I'm blocked? Also tagging other clerks @GeneralizationsAreBad: and @Sir Sputnik: to get their opinion. Either way, I hope you keep it in mind and it helps you about being alert against their coordination. Also tagging @Bbb23: since he's the most active checkuser. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Correction of revert spree
@Bbb23:, @Sir Sputnik: I've just found out that I reported the wrong name without proper checking due to confusion over their names and not double-checking. I will like to make a correction. Really sorry, I should have taken time to research thoroughly. It is Adamgerber80 who has been most active today, not Accesscrawl.
When Adamgerber80 was on revert spree, the other accounts were comparatively lesser active today. Only after his spree stopped at 05:57, did the other accounts start becoming more active. I can confidently say he is one of them.
MBlaze Lightning similarly was for some days very active and went on a revert spree. During that time, the other accounts I've accused were not much active until MBlaze stopped his revert spree on 21 August.
As as I said earlier it is highly unlikely these accounts are not related or coordinating. I haven't ever found these people editing within the same minute which can rule out socking. Accesscrawl has cooperated with them a few times especially on Adam's Bridge, but I have no solid proof he might be socking. These socks/meatpuppets have gotten away far too long. Hope my rechecking helped. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93:, @NeilN:, @TonyBallioni: Since you people seem to have encountered these people before, I thought it better to direct you to this complain as well. I can't keep showing admins again and again how obvious it is that they're either meatpuppets or socks and I don't know why they think it's okay to do nothing against them even if I'm also blocked. Socking is still socking. So I won't be contacting any more admins after this as there's no point. It's up to you to act now and do the right thing. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I checked that Billiekhalidfan and Electricwater are the same person, which confirmed by Bbb23 in w:User:Electricwater user page. As for now, I think it is obvious by the number of vandalism warnings to Billiekhalidfan talk page.
P.S. I can't post to Wikipedia talk page, because Billiekhalidfan will complain.
2402:1980:24E:ADAD:FBD2:D64A:F992:3485 11:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
"Unfair" blocked anon
This is an unfair block! I am new here! I did nothing wrong! The blocking administrator hates me! UNBLOCK ME IMMEDIATELY, THIS IS CENSORSHIP, I HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH!!! WIKIPEDIA IS SLAUGHTERING ME! FREE SPEECH!!!