Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SchmuckyTheCat/Archive

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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

• Requests for checkuser/Case/SchmuckyTheCat

Suspected sockpuppets

• Dalit Llama (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Curb Chain (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User:SchmuckyTheCat doesn't much like me; in fact, he finds me "annoying", because I explore non-standard – but allowable under guidelines – ways of improving the visual look and feel of articles for our readers. He's made a bit of a minor career of following me around and undoing my edits. [1]. Recently, a new editor, User:Dalit Llama, began doing the same thing, [2] until an admin told them to knock it off [3], after which they stopped editing for a while.[4]

Looking at the overlaps between Schmucky the Cat and Dalit Llama [5] is interesting, because although they are small in number, there are from a range of subjects which one would not expect from random overlap between a 21k editor and one with only 258 edits: Chinese culture, Glutinous rice, Hair, Restaurant Row (Manhattan), Sikh, Talk:Chinese civilization, Things to Come. (Of these only two – Restaurant Row and Things to Come – can be explained as both of the accounts undoing my edits.)

Now comes another editors complaining on my talk page about my formatting edits, although not undoing them. This relatively new editor, User:Curb Chain (both Curb Chain and Dalit Llama were created in April, on the 7th and 29th), also has an interesting overlap with Schmucky the Cat [6], again, more than would be expected randomly between an editor with 21k of edits and one with only 7500.

I do not believe this evidence is sufficient or compelling enough for a block to be applied on the basis of behavior alone, but I do think it is sufficient to justify a checkuser, to see if these three editors with a common viewpoint about my editing, two of whom have exhibited virtually identical behavior regarding those edits, are related.

It should be noted that SchmuckyTheCat and I are currently in conflict on The Godfather Part II regarding the same issues, but it should also be noted that I contemplated filing this at the time that Dalit Llama was told to stop following me around, but I did not because I hoped that the issue would simply fade away. Now that both Curb Chain and SchmuckyTheCat have revived it, I feel I have no choice but to follow up on my suspicions and file a sockpuppet investigation request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All three editors notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the check, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment I see no purpose of this report. I am not related to the above users and this nomination seems to me a bad faith nomination for User:BeyondMyKenUser:Beyond My Ken to silence is opponents.Curb Chain (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is ridiculous. Many, many, many users have complained about Beyond My Ken's edits. This does not mean they are all the same users. It means, Beyond My Ken needs to stop making those edits. To quote SchmuckyTheCat, "...BMK has been told these things multiple times, and on this article the history shows he has repeatedly re-inserted his layout changes against consensus..." Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Checkuser note: The three accounts appear  Unrelated at this point. There are similarities, yes, but no smoking gun.  Frank  |  talk  09:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking for close with no action taken, per Frank's findings. TNXMan 14:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blombardo1976 (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.

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucky Patcher (2nd nomination), immediately after a keep vote, a WP:SPA posts up another keep vote with the exact same unconventional formatting. Please see [7] and [8]. Ifnord (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The interface on this website is atrocious, the communication method anarchic and I have no clue where i'm supposed to reply,how or why based off of an email I got in my inbox about 'sock puppetry' whatever the heck that is. I make one comment about one article after many years of just browsing this site and suddenly someone is complaining or opening a report? What the heck? I don't have time to deal with this. I haven't made an edit to Wikipedia in YEARS... its a horrid system that I tend to avoid. Do I have another account? Possibly - but the account recovery system is lame, that email address I may have used in the past was created 20 years ago and the account I'm logged into now is the current email that I've used for the past 10 years.

-Why am I getting emailed about this?- this site is unnecessarily confusing - B Lombardo

lolz! SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk endorsed - per [9] and [10]. There are a lot of odd things about this case (eg). I suspect an account was compromised at some point. A check would help clarify. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
•  Unrelated and no indication either account is compromised. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]