Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SchroCat: Difference between revisions

SchroCat

SchroCat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SchroCat/Archive.

26 June 2021

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

• 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:64BD:5410:266F:5C34 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ( Clerk note: original case name)

• The_Bounder (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.

The anonymous user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00::/64

is primarily editing pages they had an interest in when they were editing as Schrocat, for example Passport to Pimlico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_to_Pimlico

Casino Royale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_Royale_(novel)

A look at the IP range contributions shows that this anonymous user is Schrocat/The_Bounder: Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barkeep49&diff=prev&oldid=976715778

Comments by other users

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

I blocked that range for the same reason as Ritchie. At the time SC was being disruptive by messing around with infoboxes again and following around editors he had been in disputes with. You can't "retire" and then immediately come back as an IP to continue with the same course of action that nearly got you sanctioned. That is abusive sockpuppetry. Of course he retaliated, and eventually I just got tired of dealing with him and started ignoring his antics. (This was wrong, and Serial Number 54129 I offer my apologies for not helping you when I should have). I'm extremely disappointed with the number of editors and administrators who are A-OKay with Schrocat's BS. It shouldn't matter how excellent a writer you are, if you aggressively bully others to the point where they want to leave or take a break the project, why should we have to tolerate you? At least that's my opinion. Sro23 (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a huge amount of untruth in the rubbish you have written. I edited a page (once, making an uncontroversial improvement) that Hal333 had worked on. One edit. It was, genuinely, a coincidence. One edit. that is NOT "following around editors he had been in disputes with". If you're going to throw out such big statements then please try and keep them at least vaguely truthful. (and if you're going to accuse people of following others, please explain how you magically appeared at the discussions on the Laurence Olivier and Ian Fleming pages I was involved with? (Glass houses, etc spring to mind). I have not bullied anyone, you have taken it upon yourself to follow my edits and block me from time to time, and not when I have done anything. You have lied time and time again in your reasons for blocking (you have consistently referred to "block evasion" as a reason for blocking, when you have blocked me when I was not blocked, and your conduct has been utterly shameful. How you have the audacity to call my actions "BS" when you can't even be truthful to yourself, let alone other people, I have no idea. You are an absolute disgrace, and just because I have called you out on second-rate actions does not mean you get to BS others without justification. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Sro23; I don't blame you, considering the toxic environment those one IP has managed to create around themselves. As I said on my talk page, I suspect a Joe-job by one of our LTAs; see for example how, even while the IPs behavior is being discussed here, they choose to edit-war at the same time. Either way, the WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ASPERSIONS and general bad faith associated with this IP is incredible, and as Sro says, it's rather bizarre that it is being treated as defensible. As far as socking goes, they were originally blocked—not necessarily for socking, mind you—but instead of appealing the block and thus vacating it, they chose—and I quote—Never mind ... time to reset the router. At that point, they knowingly and in full awareness of the consequences of their actions began to WP:EVADE that block. Which of course is still being evaded here. More bizarre. ——Serial 13:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Further, there's the whole matter of returning to previous disputes, as epitomised by these edits; not only do they reinsert themselves into an "infobox war", but returning to a discussion they previously edited as an account? Classic Architect123. Or general trolling, I guess. ——Serial 13:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

From my talk: The accusations and aggression that has occasionally come from that IP ([1],[2])—including edit-warring and more blocks (at least one from Black Kite, I see—and such choice edit-summaries as "piss off", and "idiot" are pretty egregious wheth a returning editor or not. ——Serial 13:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• A few more untruths to throw onto the fire here. I have not started on the battleground behaviour, but I will defend myself against bullies who use lies and half-truths to try and smear me. That includes bullying admins who are not truthful when applying blocks and who cannot justify their reasons for doing so. Sro23 is one of those in point. As to you, why did you think it was acceptable to revert the constructive and improving edit on the Baker Street article? Why did you use the edit summary of "WP:DENY" - something applied to trolls? Your reversion took the article backwards, yet you repeated it without any justification in your action; why? Why did you log out to revert another improvement and ping Sro23 at the same time? Do you think it's fine to throw aspersions at me for editing without an account, but you can switch between account and logged out editing without any problem? Do you think it's acceptable to change the chronology of a discussion with the edit summary "rvv"? Can you explain how you think that is vandalism? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk declined. Schrocat ceased editing under their named account and resumed editing as an IP, which is not considered a violation of the sockpuppetry policy. Closing without action. --Blablubbs|talk 18:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Blablubbs you might want to look at the /64's block log :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Blablubbs, Yes, as you say I resumed editing as an IP (only from time to time), and have made no secret of my identity when asked (even having a discussion with El C on more than one occasion while acting as an IP, and fully disclosing my identity). Unfortunately some of the admin cadre are a little less knowledgeable about policy, and I see that at the exact same time you closed this saying there was no infringement, another block was placed on the IP range, with the rather dubious claim of "disruptive editing". Perhaps the admin in question could justify that claim by way of diffs? If not, perhaps they should lift the improperly applied block, as there was no justification for the block (unless there is another user also on the same range, which is entirely possible). Cheers - The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• I was unaware of that /64 block log. And now that I see it, I'm unable to make complete sense of it. @Ritchie333, Sro23, and Bbb23: the blocking admins. El_C 10:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Whoa: 333, 23, 23 — what is the universe trying to tell me? [Apologies in advance for being tone deaf — too much coffee!] El_C 11:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• The arrangement I made with SchroCat was that I would enact a courtesy vanish in order for them to retire from the project gracefully. At the point this happened, it seemed a likely alternative would be an Arbcom block, possibly indefinite. So I made it abundantly clear that the courtesy vanish meant you stopped editing and quit the project; it was not a "get out of arbcom free" card. So I consider this sockpuppetry. A shame a great editor has to end up like this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"it seemed a likely alternative would be an Arbcom block, possibly indefinite": that is simply untrue. Absolute nonsense. There was no specific "agreement" Ritchie, that is also untrue. (I am happy to release the thread of the email exchange we had at the time, if you like, but my request was "Hi Ritchie, Could you please "vanish" my account (per WP:VANISHED)? Cheers Gavin". There is no sockpuppetry here - you need to actually read the policy, not make up your own interpretation of of it. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

You asked me to enact a courtesy vanishing off-wiki on 13 September 2020 and specifically linked to WP:VANISH, which says, verbatim, "Courtesy vanishing is discretionary and may be refused. It is not intended to be temporary. It is not a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. It is not a fresh start and does not guarantee anonymity. Any of the deleted pages may be undeleted after a community discussion. If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed." and "Vanishing is a last resort and should only be used when you wish to stop editing forever [emphasis mine] and also to hide as many of your past associations as possible." Have you stopped editing Wikipedia forever?

Look, I don't don't want to particularly fall out with you, your content work is brilliant and you're one of the best copyeditors the project has ever had, but your talent to get in a blazing row about infoboxes at the slightest provocation just depresses me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Is my account vanished? No, it's not. So when I look at my contributions under this IP and see a rewrite of Snakehips Johnson that's at about FA standard and see someone with a grudge against me like Bbb23 has blocked me for "Disruptive editing", I smile at the pettiness of wikilawyering like his – and yours. My account is not vanished, I have not violated the socking policy, I am not acting like a vandal or troll, so you, Bbb23 and Serial number can stop blocking or reverting when I improve things. As to idiot boxes, you have an extremely narrow view of what I do. I avoid 99% of all IBs, except when someone raises their head on an article I've worked on (and you'll note that the Johnson article includes a box). I don't go round pushing the disruption all over the place, as others do, so you can drop trying to paint me as some crusading warrior. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• (I wish SC wasn't editing in this section, but ...) My only involvement with SC was back in August 2018 when I blocked them for socking. That block was overturned by ArbCom, and, since then, I don't believe I've had anything to do with SC. The basis of my recent block of the /64 range was exactly what the log says, disruptive editing. I certainly noticed the extensive history of blocks, which, from my perspective, supported my block. I'm sorry to confess ignorance, but I had no idea it was SC I was blocking.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for posting in the wrong section, but if it's easy to do (without breaking the thread), please feel free to move the comments or the thread into the correct position.

Can you point to where you think the disruption was that led to the block? It is entirely possible that there is another user on the IP range that has been problematic (EE is the largest mobile provider in the UK and the range covers a significant amount of S London). The blocks you see on the range comprise one just about justified and four not - at least as far as my edits go. If you can highlight the edits you blocked for, I'll let you know if they are mine or not. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

---