Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SchroCat/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)




 * 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 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)
 * 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, ; 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 —including edit-warring and more blocks (at least one from, 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)
 * And what are these? User:UtterBuffoon and User:The Bounder—blocked socks? There's some strange stuff going on here—is there already a history of socking? ——  Serial  14:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm more and more convinced this is an LTA. No-one else would go to the trouble of causing so much! ——  Serial  14:32, 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)
 * Nicely avoiding the questions I have put to you, but I presume you have no real answer for any of them. And a few more half truths to deal with too. Black Kite has not blocked me - I have never edited the East India Company article (it's not an area of interest for me), so will have been someone else using the IP at that particular point, and why have you included an edit summary from August 2020 when I was still editing as SchroCat? - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear me, you do like trying to throw petrol on things that have no relevance, don't you. Not that I have to explain anything to you at all, (and you knew about these before, as my email history shows we discussed them previously) but (or any other admin) will explain that both UtterBuffoon and The Bounder were both mentioned on the old SchroCat user page before Ritchie wiped it (at my request). Indeed, if you look at the page history, you'll see an Arb has written "Redirected per request to ArbCom. Declared alternative account" as part of the redirection. Any more irrelevant nonsense you want to try and throw around while you're here? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Just to confirm, the email quoted below, mentioning SchroCat's real name, is genuine and matches the one in my infobox verbatim. I am convinced this is not a joe job. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, clearly, there is an LTA hovering around (example), but it seems highly doubtful that it's SC. El_C 18:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , 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 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)


 * 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)
 * Your account isn't vanished because you were caught socking and Arbcom asked me to un-vanish it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. Try again, Ritchie. I had two CLEANSTARTS (one for each name), but was outed deliberately by Singora on the first one, and then in essence by Bbb23 on the second. The matter was discussed at ArbCom and my name was cleared of socking, but I was told that if I wanted to change my name again, I was under an editing restriction that I was (and still am) "required to disclose any future alternative accounts either publicly or privately to the Arbitration Committee." You can see that restriction here. I did not realise the account couldn't be vanished because of the restriction (although I have always assumed it stood whether the account stands as is, or was vanished, but such is the way of Arbcom). Please strike the accusation of socking, as it is untrue and inappropriate. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this thread, specifically the comment from : "I'll second Joe's request that these two accounts be unvanished, as they have both been caught editing logged out after their disappearance. I'm also disappointed that their requests to vanish were granted unilaterally, given that they both have active ArbCom sanctions and were being discussed here. As for my ideas above about opening another case or set of motions, we can probably put them on hold at this time" (The other account was Cassianto, but they had not edited logged out, so their vanishing stands). Now, you might be able to argue that I caved in to pressure from Arbcom members to save my own skin, but the facts are there. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing you of anything, but I will also quote BradV when he wrote here: "I didn't realize this needed to be said, I didn't accuse anyone of socking. Editing while logged out after a courtesy vanishing isn't abuse of multiple accounts, it just means that the rename should get reversed, according to WP:RTV. That's what happened to, who resumed editing as an IP and made no attempt to hide it. This is not a blockable offense.". As he has confirmed quite clearly that I was not socking, and as he has clearly said that editing as an IP while not hiding by previous identity is "not a blockable offense", not only do I look forward to you striking the accusation of socking, but of you, SRO and any other party not blocking me for making constructive edits. I also expect SN not to revert me for the same thing, and not to log out to ping a tame admin in the hope I'll be blocked. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . 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&#124;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)


 * I was unaware of that /64 block log. And now that I see it, I'm unable to make complete sense of it. 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)


 * (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)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

diff ip1 diff ip2 next diff ip2 diff ip3. IP1 confirms sock of SchroCat, IP2 and IP3 use same IP range and edit in ANI thread about IP1. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  13:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Ummm... Yes, This is the former editor known as SchroCat; I no longer use the account since the password was scrambled, and I now occasionally edit from a IP address (it's a dynamic IP, which is why it shifts around - this isn't something I can control). I do not deny who I am when asked. This is not against the sockpuppet policy. Perhaps the OP should have looked at the previous investigation, taking note of 's closing statement: "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." 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3 (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * would it be appropriate to strike recent comments from this IP? Firefangledfeathers 20:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Congrats on the mop. Firefangledfeathers 21:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the ip is blocked...SchroCat (admittedly a long term wiki-friend of mine) is not blocked, just retired, and it wasn't so much an "edit war" as a content dispute, perhaps hastily escalated because of his ip status. I can understand, given how addictive this place is, making the psychological break with a user-id so as not to fall back into regular editing, but surely occasional ip editing post heavy duty service is allowed? Esp when he is being (more or less) upfront about it? Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * PS; I dont know much about sock laws, but in this case, out of respect for a long term editor, would let the ip comments here stand. I do however appreciate the volume of cases ye guys cycle through day after day, so defer. Ceoil (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Blablubbs, thats fine, I see your hands are tied, and note your cmt "the permissibility of his continued editing is probably best handled in a broader discussion". Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I have reverted a removal of the SPI by the filer. for a month; not because it's SchroCat per se (the permissibility of his continued editing is probably best handled in a broader discussion, see the archive), but because 's block on  is still active, and fairly obviously targeted at SchroCat (that /64 does not look shared), which makes this evasion. Closing.  --Blablubbs (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers: In my view, it's certainly permissible – regarding whether it is the "right" thing to do, I have to defer to those more familiar with the debates in question. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ceoil: The issue here was that after he had abandoned his account and begun to edit logged out, SchroCat's IP was blocked for disruptive editing; that block is still active, but SchroCat has continued editing using a different IP (hence making this block evasion – blocks are usually not placed against accounts or IPs, but against specific people). I (consciously) didn't litigate the validity of SchroCat's continued editing as a whole (see also my comment above). Let me know if there is something I can clarify. Also, thanks Firefangledfeathers! --Blablubbs (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
These IP editors comment mostly or solely in Talk:Laurence Olivier regarding infobox content. Furthermore, the user identified oneself as Schrocat. One IP address who made this comment was blocked last month, but possibly the same user whose IP address was blocked has been using other IP addresses to possibly evade blocks. Furthermore, one editor revealed oneself to have edited FAs and GAs. Manners possibly similar:

Unsure about, who made this comment, but it's possibly the same editor who used those IPs. I could be wrong George Ho (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * I am the editor who has made comments on the Olivier talk page. I have made no secret of my identity and signed some of my posts with my former name. I gave up the SchroCat account some time ago and scrambled the password. As a user who left in good standing and one who is not blocked or barred from editing, I am entitled to edit as an IP. See the comment left by here that explains what is not sockpuppetry. (And this is not me, as even a cursory glance at the Geolocate data will show - that IP was blocked after a checkuser by, who should be able to clarify that I am not the same user he blocked.) 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:358D:5BA:AB1A:CE0E (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Commenting as somebody somewhat involved - have been friendly with SC for years and follow the discussions wrt to Laurence Olivier, though have never commented as far as I remember. Anyhow, this is obviously (as said below) a vexatious claim, as tends to be filing party's MOS; making aggressive moves and when called out scrambling for cover. By coincidence - or not- had this argument, just two days ago, where he was trying to delete files from an FA without basis, and when called wrote "I'll withdraw the nominations and not discuss the samples further. I don't want my supposed conducted to be evaluated further. Is that fine?", followed by "What do you think I should do to remedy what you think is an "issue" about me, especially in the future?". Don't want to take this further, but mentioning in case this filing is used later against SC. George, I think you are basically well intentioned, but you should learn to learn from your mistakes. Ceoil (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * CU  Spicy (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This looks like a vexatious filing. No rules have been broken, no sanctions evaded, and no scrutiny avoided (other than the confusion caused by dynamic IPs but that's uncontrollable). <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * would it be possible to say whether the /32 block has any connection to SchroCat? If not, as the previous block expired before SchroCat started editing on, I'll close this without action. DatGuyTalkContribs 08:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @DatGuy Sorry, CU policy forbids making any public connection between an IP and an account. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I considered perhaps the range is large enough per WP:CUIPDISCLOSE or the evidence on cuwiki is behavioural rather than technical. Regardless, . DatGuyTalkContribs 14:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)