| Revision as of 10:43, 1 July 2021 editEl C (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,830 edits →Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments: respond to ping and ping blocking admins← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:48, 1 July 2021 edit undoRitchie333 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators125,340 edits →Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments: cmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 36: * {{u|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 {{u|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 ] (]) 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. {{re|Ritchie333|Sro23|Bbb23}} the blocking admins. ] 10:43, 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 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. ] ] ] 10:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC) ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> | |||
Revision as of 10:48, 1 July 2021
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 Misplaced Pages: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/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/Passport_to_Pimlico
Casino Royale https://en.wikipedia.org/Casino_Royale_(novel)
A look at the IP range contributions shows that this anonymous user is Schrocat/The_Bounder: Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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.
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)
- 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 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 10:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Categories: