User talk:Sro23/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

A situation which could benefit from your expertise

Hi Sro23, I hope the day finds you well. I'm hoping that I may solicit your attention regarding an SPI connected to some particularly troubling issues: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Researcher1000#28_September_2018. Normally even with high degree of disruption involved, I would be happy to wait out the behavioural and checkuser analysis, but this case involves recurrent WP:CHILDPROTECT issues regarding an article about a sex offender convicted of various crimes involving child sexual exploitation, who I believe is continuing to use a family of socks (some of them already blocked) to push his disturbing philosophies about how to approach a child for sex through our articles. So I believe the sooner the matter is addressed, the better. I don't really know your on-project work firsthand, but I recalled from your RfA a few months back that scores of participating editors referenced you as one of our preeminent experts on SPIs. As such, I was hoping you would bring your analytical skills in this area to bear on the matter. If you have time to take a look, I'd appreciate it. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Sro23. The SPI has now been resolved by another admin; please disregard the above request. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing but the Beat

Can you keep an eye of the page to persistent block evasion by User:MariaJaydHicky. 123.136.118.150 (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Look into some accounts

Hello Sro23, Some accounts namely TechnicalDevityoutube & Technicalahmed have done some misleading edits which voilate the policies of Wikipedia. I request you to look into the matter. Thanks ~Inked Soul~ (talk • contribs) 04:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Revdel

Special:Permalink/865203376 could do witb a revdel too. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Srz23

Would you like to revoke talk page access for this LTA, as they keep trying to copy your talk page onto theirs, and delete Wikipedia:Sockpuppet Investigations/Sro23 and User:Srz23? Thanks!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Took care of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Alright, thanks Ivan. :-)--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sro23. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Request

Please review the contributions of User:AAMerri12 on List of African-American United States Representatives. This user might be the same user that you "rv block evasion" on 20:49, 3 September 2018. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mitchumch why are you making a complaint about me? AAMerri12 (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't seen your post here, Mitchumch, but this sock has now been dealt with - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Cordless Larry Thank you. Is it possible for you to revert all of AAMerri12 edits on List of African-American United States Representatives. He/she only reverted some of their edits. Again, thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the article, Mitchumch, so I'd prefer not to interfere, but if you feel that that is appropriate, then just revert to this revision. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I'm Sorry. I thought it was standard practice to revert the edits of a user that engaged in block evasion. Mitchumch (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Mitchumch, I just don't have the time right now to make sure I do a proper job of it, which is important given that table formatting is involved. If you know what you're doing, please do take this on yourself. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

HEY I MADE A BLOCK AND IT WAS A GOOD BLOCK

• Ha, I keep forgetting I don't have to rush over any time I see one of those edit summaries--you're an admin now! Woohoo! Drmies (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• I blocked a few more. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Children's Lit WikiProject

Hi. I'm Barkeep49 and I am working to re-establish the Children's literature WikiProejct as an active project. It seems like you might be interested in (re)joining. If so I would encourage you to add your name back to the active members list. If you have any questions feel free to leave me a talk page message or ping me here. Otherwise I hope to see you around the project. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Cricket veteran

Thanks for your amazing contributions. Ikhtiar H (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello Sro23, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 21:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas and happy 2019!

Merry Christmas and happy new year! I was happy to see you have a successful RfA during 2018. I hope you will edit more happily in 2019 Hhkohh (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Sro23!

Happy New Year!

Sro23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

How do I request a CheckUser for a suspected sockpuppet?

Last night, I opened a sockpuppet investigation (or so I thought) for Do laima and presenting evidence that such new editor is a sockpuppet of the recently banned Kawhilaugh42. I added the page to my Watchlist, and this morning I noticed that my edit creating the investigation page was described as follows:

• It started with "Created page with '{{subst:SPI report |checkuser=no"
• then it added a "less than" sign and an exclamation point (which I can't type here if I want the rest of what I wrote to be shown)
• And it concluded with "If you want to request checkuser, simply change the line above this comment to checkuser=yes For the list of suspected sock...')"

I went back and checked the investigation page that I created, even clicking on "edit" to see hidden text, and could not find any "checkuser=no" language.

Did I indeed fail to request a CheckUser when I created the investigation page? And, if so, what do I need to do? The page is the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kawhilaugh42

I would appreciate any assistance that you may provide for me. Thank you. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• @AuH2ORepublican: to request Checkuser on an open case, add "CUrequest" or "Checkuser" to the SPI case status template: Here's an example of what I mean. Sro23 (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much! AuH2ORepublican (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Table of Contents

It is perfectly sensible to add the table of contents of a book to its entry in an encyclopedia. Nerd271 (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Nerd271, I refer you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article, which states "an exhaustive list of contents, without any editorial commentary or significance, should not be included. Unless the list has encyclopedic value it is better to convey this in the synopsis." Sro23 (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Not entirely convinced. If it is a short book, I would agree with you. But this is a massive and comprehensive text, and the table of contents tells you a lot about the book. Note that I deliberately did not include the sections, only the chapters, because that would be excessive. I am skeptical that a synopsis would be sufficient. Nerd271 (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Sro23. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GAB^gab 14:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Sro23. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 09:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Night Beats

Hi. I have no idea what your link to another page means, but you are reverting back to a version of the article with made up information, with unreferenced detail. Pill-shaped-heart added two references for mundane details to try and make it look like they were adding factual refenced information. You may even see that the link to a band called The Tempers makes no mention of any member of Night Beats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wibbleewobbleee (talk • contribs) 12:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever you say TAWT. Banned users aren't welcome to contribute here. Go find something better to do with your time. Sro23 (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It's normal?

It's normal? I'm trying to improve his voice but I've been threatened ("Presto ci vedremo in Tribunale"). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domenico_Morgante&diff=next&oldid=883473233&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domenico_Morgante&diff=883477700&oldid=883474907 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domenico_Morgante&diff=883477700&oldid=883473627&diffmode=source Driante70 (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

User:DavidJanet and User:DavidJanet88 appear to be sockpuppets of User:Otto4711

I don't exactly know enough about Wikipedia to know how to formally go about accusing someone of sockpuppetry, but this Reddit post seems to have some convincing evidence of a new case.

https://www.reddit.com/r/daverubin/comments/aw9yuv/dave_rubins_husbands_wikipedia_sockpuppets/

2607:FEA8:8400:1E9D:612E:B0C2:233D:D2D0 (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

LeShun Daniels

I’m sorry we’re you at their wedding? Did you go to school with the both of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:803D:8051:8C85:7665:6539:CEFA (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello S. I moved this post to the bottom of the page and here is a link to the article in question LeShun Daniels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 04:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Another possible McAusten sock

Not the usual countdown, but other sandbox edits are a common red flag Special:Contributions/You_can't_park_your_car_here!. Another possible here Special:Contributions/Culldemcollards, IP is currently Special:Contributions/69.162.104.173 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.79.160 (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the first account, the second one I'm not sure if a block would be justifiable at this point. Sro23 (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

More incoming it seems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gill_Lagrutta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mel_Marazita Proabable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Onmipresence Latest candidate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rhiannon_Fitzgerald and again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Carla_Wilkie

Assistance please

Hi Sro23. You seem to be having a similar problem to me and could use your input here. Cheers Robvanvee 16:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for blocking that persistent vandal! :)

Rockstonetalk to me! 03:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Troll

Thanks for the block of Special:Contributions/2601:646:C400:149D:2194:1D20:AE38:B66. Can you disable talk page access also? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Please can you do it,because he sent me some violent threats against my safety.Alhanuty (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC) now he is harassing me on simple english and german wikipedia,can wikipedia do something about it.Alhanuty (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I feel threatened by that IP

Thank you for blocking the IP,who was harassing me and sending me harm threats against me.Alhanuty (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

latest sock of user:174.88.79.79 and user:70.52.227.174

See [1] Meters (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. Sro23 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hey, would you mind blocking Special:Contribs/2600:1:92E1:A99E:D9E9:715:9F85:3AFB? I noticed you just blocked 2600:1:92E1:A99E:1800:DC10:174E:DAF3. Many thanks, --SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 02:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Beyard508

I noticed that you blocked User:Beyard508 for sock puppetry, but there was no sock puppet investigation. Who are they a sock puppet of? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It's that annoying SPI troll LTA. Most recently blocked as Special:Contributions/Wakeup508. Sro23 (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy anniversary Sro23!! MarnetteD|Talk 19:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Aww gee, thanks! Sro23 (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Two glints of gold in a pile of coal

Tracking down an IP's bad edits I came across cross-talk on a redirect Unikini. Then I noticed this and wondered how that could happen? See, the changed redirect doesn't 'work' - there is no such section in Bikini. That section got moved in 2009 to Bikini variants.

(Oh dear, that IP 134.154.53.236 is another of the same set of IPs I'm tracking - 134.154.53.236 and 76.126.49.152. Also 134.154.44.172? 134.154.52.180? 134.154.42.9? 134.154.45.85? Oh! Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Fangusu) I guess I'm off to AIV to ask about this/these.

Anyway, checking against the possibility the IP was right is an ideal. Oops

Crap, I keep seeing you battling this vandal over and over and over. Back into mid-2018 (some cartoon) at least. An ideal is an ideal, but sheesh! I can agree with what's realistically possible. Which is in the way of a semi-apology for the above. Shenme (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about changing a redirect target

Can you explain why you made this edit? You replaced a perfectly correct redirect to an article section which doesn't exist, and indeed hasn't existed for more than a decade. It is difficult to imagine that you could possibly have intended to do that, so you appear to have reverted another editor's edit without checking to see whether it was valid or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was reverting a sock of Fangusu. Mea culpa, I'm sorry, but with the amount to LTA's I've been reverting over the years, mistakes are bound to happen. Surely you can understand. You literally created a separate account used for indiscriminately reverting edits made by blocked/banned editors. Sro23 (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Please see my 'semi-apology' in section directly above. That edit by the LTA was the *only* good one in 40+ consecutive edits I checked. This one is nasty, if only for quantity. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Fangusu Shenme (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, after I posted that message and went off to do other things (amazingly enough there is life outside Wikipedia) I thought again about it, and various thoughts occurred to me, including the fact that I sometimes mass-revert edits by block-evaders without checking every edit, so my message to you was somewhat unfair. Mea culpa, and apologies. The problem really was that I saw that edit on its own, without the context in which it was made, which I am now aware of. If you look at the editing history of my alternative account you will see that even in mass rollbacks I normally give an edit summary briefly saying what I am doing, such as reverting a block-evading editor, and whenever it seems desirable I explicitly invite other editors to restore individual edits if there are any good ones among the mass that I have reverted, as for example in this edit. By default roll-back doesn't give the option of giving an edit summary, and unfortunately I don't remember how I got it to do so, but presumably it must be some setting in the user preferences. You may like to see if you can find out how to do it, as it can avoid doubts and misunderstandings. Once again, my apologies for the fact that my message above was not well thought out. Also, semi-apologies for bringing up again something that you had already dealt with in the section above, though maybe I can't be blamed very much for not checking the whole of every user talk page before I post to it. (Incidentally, I like the section heading for the section above. It was much more imaginative than my prosaically boring heading for this section.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I have now found out what I did to get edit summaries with mass rollback. You may or may not be interested, but if you are then here is how to do it. It turns out that it isn't a "preferences" setting, as I thought, it's a script, which in your case you could load at User:Sro23/common.js. What you would need to add to that page is:

mw.loader.load( '//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' );

It gives the edit-summary option only for mass-rollbacks, i.e "rollback all", but that is no great problem, as reverting recent editing on a single page while giving an edit summary is easy enough anyway, by just editing the revision one wants to revert to. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 13:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Likely sock of an IP you blocked?

I noticed the same edit being made from a different IP as an IP you blocked here. Seems to be an attempt to get around the block.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alphabet_song&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=900595610&oldid=900512461

Cheers Mvolz (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like this has been taken care of. Sro23 (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Article unlocked, IPv6 editor repeating same unexplained edits.

You locked the article about a month ago and not long after it was unlocked the same anon IPv6 editor went right back and repeated the disruptive edits that caused the article to be locked. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghost_in_the_Shell_(2017_film)&diff=901056201&oldid=899790123

The editor does not follow even the WP:SIMPLE rules by explaining changes with an edit summary or discussing on article talk pages, which is shows a serious lack of good faith. Please lock the article again, or block a range of his IP. -- 109.78.204.22 (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I protected the article because I saw a bunch of back and forth reverting and no discussion on the talk page. I have the article watchlisted, so I'll keep an eye on it. Sro23 (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing. As I already said this guy does not show enough good faith to even provide edit summaries, fat chance of getting a Talk page discussion. I'm using the markup specified by Template:Cite web, not sure what the official reason for the change was but using markup that doesn't get flagged as a misspelling sure makes it easier to see actual typos and mistakes. He has made no effort to explain himself and I checked the diff, he is not making any change (or improvement) to the article except stripping the markup.

I'd like you to lock the article (set it to allow flagged edits ideally) or block his IP range. -- 109.79.92.164 (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. -- 109.78.227.157 (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Sro23. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Continental Rift (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

"trying to keep articles free from misinformation"
... you were recipient no. 1968 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I am going to disagree

You wrote "The first IP appears to be someone else, given the location."

I am not sure I fully understand your closure, but, with regards to the other edits made by 24.113.241.151... I suspect that most of the edits made by 24.113.241.151 were made by my wikistalker, and that they had grown careless in mixing their edits in response to my edits with their general contributions.

Who is this wikistalker? They acknowledged they had a history of editing solely using IP addresses, prior to their creation of CommotioCerebri. They created that named id solely to respond to my reverting an edit they made as an IP.

After years of interaction with this individual I think their real history has been something like this:

1. Started participating at least a year or two before crossing paths with me;
2. Soon created their first named ID;
3. As with their early interactions with me, was unwilling or unable to consider good faith feedback and advice from more experienced contributors, and either earned an indefinite block, or voluntarily decided to abandon their first named ID, and return to editing using IP addresses, where they didn't have to worry about being held responsible for their edits.
4. My first interaction with them was when, in response to this prod, I tried to initiate a discussion on the talk page.
5. They turned out to be one of that fraction of humanity who considers disagreement to be a personal attack, and most of their edits from the named ID were wikistalking, to "get even".

So, I believe that this individual had a long history of editing using IP addresses, to evade accountability, for years prior to creating CommotioCerebri. I believe they continued to make unaccountable edits, using IP addressess, while still editing using the CommotioCerebri ID. I believe that the bulk of their activity on en.wiki, following their indefinite block, is making the same kind of half-assed IP edits as they were prior to their indefinite block.

If they are making dozens, or hundreds of IP edits, that are not motivated by malice, should this be seen as a problem? Yeah, I think it should. They have vast overconfidence over their understanding of our policies, and cannot be trusted to make competent edits.

FWIW, it is quite possible they are harrassing other contributors who pissed them off, using other stables of IP addresses. Geo Swan (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to geolocation. CommotioCerebri is in Canada. 24.113.241.151 edits from the United States. Sro23 (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Someone you block

Iamjustsocool (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Confirmed to Bankercatboy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), no clue who the original master is, but thought I'd give you a heads up. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Heres The Dealio. No clue who the original master is either. Sro23 (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Cool. Blocked the one there too and another. /me shrugs. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Request....

Hey, Could you disable pending changes on Alliance Films as the semi protection expires goes up to a year?

Thanks! --IanDBeacon (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

List of music considered the worst.

Hi. Can you or someone else who's in charge of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll please get involved in the list of music considered the worst discussion? I know I have been uncivil in this, but it is infuriating how any attempt to remove Sgt. Pepper's from the list just dies off, even after it's been revealed that a certain troll helped push for its inclusion. Also, can you look into these anonymous users? User:5.64.203.172, User:5.71.123.48, User:5.71.120.78, User:94.6.137.205. Thanks. Rjrya395 (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Sro23, if you wish to intervene, that’s fine, but please ask me for the full story first. This editor isn’t accurately describing the situation. Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have any interest in adding myself to that discussion, though I will try to keep it sockpuppet-free. Also, those IP's haven't edited in months so I'm not sure what you want me to do? Sro23 (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

These were the IPs who added or re-added the Sgt. Pepper entry that started this whole thing. I'm asking you if they come across as TAWT edits. Rjrya395 (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, those do look to be TAWT, but like I said the edits happened months ago, there's nothing we can do about it now. Sro23 (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/The abominable Wiki troll yet?LM2000 (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Tracy Von Doom

Paraphrasing Eliza Bennet, I'm exceedingly puzzled by this conversation. Even assuming you were reluctant to block the user for block evasion because for reasons that elude me you didn't think they were WP:BKFIP, given that I was the blocking admin on some of the accounts he confessed to, why didn't you alert me? The account is blocked now because of an IP's edit at ANI, but, please, next time - if there is a next time - contact me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't looked to see who had actually blocked the accounts. Will let you know next time. Sro23 (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

"Trevor Marvin Geier" IP

Do you know who Special:Contributions/2600:1702:C0:8CA0::/64 is? The edit summaries should be a dead giveaway, but I can't figure out if this is an LTA vandal or just some random IP editor. The M.O. is to invent full names for fictional characters. For example, the IP changes "Joe Character" to "Joseph 'Joe' Character". I know at least one sock who does that, but I can't think of anyone who has used that edit summary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, not a clue. Sro23 (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Talkpage Abuse

user:Imstillhereitdyourname is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well Sro23. MarnetteD|Talk 21:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!
	Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year!CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year Sro23!

Happy New Year!

Hello Sro23:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy New Year!

Sro23,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Thank you, etc.

Thanks for dealing with the issue I was having with that other anonymous IP, who is evidently in India. And a Happy New Year to you as well! :) 208.138.53.57 (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent change deletion

Why did you delete the added information regarding Matthew Guthmiller? Jwkane (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, do not use court records to support assertions about a living person. You'll have to find a better source than that. Sro23 (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

A court document isn't a reliable source? It is created under penalty of perjury and subject to judicial oversight and counter party analysis.

Could you refer me to the Wikipedia style guide that supports your assertion? Jwkane (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

My apologies I re-read and didn't initialy recognize the link that you had anticipated my question. I don't agree with the policy , but you were correct in applying it. Jwkane (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

107.77.192.90

needs blocking thanks.

--81.148.246.72 (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I see you blocked the reporting IP, Sro. Anyhoo, 107.77.192.90 is from the same little /25 range as 107.77.192.55, which you had already blocked, so I blocked the range. I don't know if maybe a somewhat bigger range wants blocking. Bishonen | talk 13:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC).

The Tribe (1999 TV series)

Hi, Sro23 – could you please take a look at the recent editing of this article? Suddenly a series (and I mean like half a dozen!) unconfirmed accounts have popped up editing this article all just in the last few days. Because the focus of all of them seems to be on "grammar" at the article, I'm suspicious of Orchomen, esp. because you've found Orchomen socks editing in the last few days. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The article is tagged as needing copy editing for grammar, so I don't see any reason for suspicion. Sro23 (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Another very new editor just popped up. I can assure you, what I am seeing at this article is unusual – you don't have half-a-dozen "new" named accounts show up on an obscure article like this within a couple of days of each other. It looks fishy to me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Could be an edit-a-thon. Sro23 (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

SEE TV Draft:Muhammad_Saad_Uddin

Yes i admit it that i had created this article in past and wikipedia deleted it but at that time i didn't have any sourses of that and i just wanted to try it that's why i had multiple account but believe me i did't mean to violate wikipedia policies.. please guide me that how can i resolve this issue and kepp my article remain in wikipedia. i can also provide you my official documents and my company documnets where i work.

basically i want to explain you something about the article which was deleted my times by wikipedia SEE TV because our employees were trying to re-make our company article on wikipedia because in 2015 to 2018, someone created our company article See TV with some wrong information and he was trying to challange us a fake leadership which was definitely creating problem and damaged our company name in the pakistan satellite television channel market. that's why i want to request you to give me 1 more change to create our company article again with the name SEE TV and i promise that i will not do the same mistake that i did in past. Saaduddin2020 (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop deleting my posts and saying you'll block me from editing

I'm talking mainly about my edits that I made to cultural appropriation. That is NOT my personal opinion, that's actually facts. I never heard the term 'cultural misappropriation', so me adding 'cultural appreciation' is completely fine, it's even a more known term. The fact that it is controversial when one culture adopts elements from another culture and disrespect it is a well known fact that were not written at the start of this article. 92.245.5.72 (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm asking you to please carefully look over the policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your edit contravenes these policies and so that's why I removed it. Thanks. Sro23 (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice

Your nominee has received the Editor of the Week award. @MarnetteD: seconded your submission while it was in the queue so I included him in the attribution. Thanks and hope you can find another worthy candidate. ―Buster7 ☎ 21:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User Onzite. (with the period)/PastieFace/Ritalin12/Rich Coburn is apparently now posting as 122.61.47.145

He responded to your comment on my talk page with this response.

Thanks for doing the research on all the sock puppets of that editor. I have no idea why he's so obsessed with Jeh. Guy Harris (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked the IP. Sro23 (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you...

remove everything related to Drmies from here and here. This person recycles non-deleted vandalism to avoid filters, as explained here. Thanks. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 14:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Fifth Anniversary on Wikipedia

Hey, Sro23. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

But it is considered a homicide ...

Re this: Point taken, but in the absence of categories with "homicide" in the title (which we really should have, at least in the U.S.) I think the "murder" cats are the least we can do. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to create "homicide" categories then be my guest, but I'm going to categorize the page by what reliable sources say, and per those sources the case was never ruled as murder. Sro23 (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent block

I'm not sure what on earth the user was thinking there. The Thanks log shows numerous actions of that user thanking mostly Geraldo Perez and made two edits before you blocked the user. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: Max Giladi controversy

Hi, I was going to ask for assistance on how to properly incorporate my sources into the page. I don't think there is any issue of the sources themselves, because the proof is rather demonstrable. Please advise on how I should proceed, thank you.

Ziodyne (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ziodyne: I suggest you give WP:BLP a thorough read. When adding potentially defamatory material about a living person, you must use high quality (think major news media outlets) sources. Twitter and imgur aren't going to cut it. Sro23 (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, i'm struggling to see the logic in that. Because it's predicated on the notoriety of the subject in question, and if these incidents weren't made clear in the public conscious then it won't be covered by a major news media outlet, so it's a bit of a catch 22. Also I must confess, I worry about this issue because it was you who created Max Gilardi page in question. You seem to be on the level, and I seem to recall our prior interactions being positive, but I fear there's a slight potential for conflict of interest here. "I think potentially defamatory material" doesn't cut it in this case, since the racism is clearly self-evident. Are you sure that simply not using the web archive is not enough?Ziodyne (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I have a couple of questions. You say, "I seem to recall our prior interactions being positive". What prior interactions? I've never interacted with you before this moment, unless this isn't your first account. If so, then what is your previous account(s)? Also, just because I created the page, doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest. Yes, I strongly dislike it when people add errors, BLP violations, and generally mess up the article I worked hard on to create and maintain, but I would never edit a page I have a COI with. I do not know this person in real life nor do I have any sort of connection to him, I just created his Wikipedia article. Lastly, did you read WP:BLP yet? Here's why it's so important to abide by our BLP policies: because anyone can edit Wikipedia. If we didn't have a strict policy requiring high quality reliable sources backing up potentially libelous info, then any random person could add fake information to defame you. Imagine the kind of damage this could cause to someone's personal life, not to mention all the legal consequences for Wikipedia itself. Nowadays with how technology has progressed, anyone can photoshop your social media posts to make you say whatever they want. That's why we can't use those twitter and imgur images as sources. What if you had a Wikipedia article and someone who has a bone to pick with you photoshops a tweet you made, making it look like you said something horrible, and then cites the photoshopped image as "proof" you are a racist? Would you want that to stay on your article? I'm not saying the images in question were photoshopped, but I think I've demonstrated my point why they can't be used as sources in this case. Sro23 (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I honestly can't recall. The username Sro23 seems familiar to me, but it's possible I could be experiencing source amnesia, and to be clear, this is my first account. That said, while your arguments are valid, I still think you're making a false dilemma here. For instance, there is a considerable amount of information corroborating Giladi's behavior. I understand why twitter images could be falsified, but in this case we're talking about someone who was banned from Twitter due to their behavior and has a fair amount of posts vouching for his behavior. I think that in and of itself is worth noting and is ultimately the difference between a hypothetical version of myself and Giladi. I have read BLP, and I understand the guidelines, however, i'm frustrated that we're essentially allowing someone who has consistently mocked and disparaged minorities and effectively delegitimized their concerns go free without condemnation. How are we supposed to expect these people to change if we don't hold them accountable for their actions? At the very least, it's probably at least worth mentioning that his twitter account was suspended (which can be corroborated by the several sources on this page to point to a suspended twitter account). I appreciate your patience — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziodyne (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reading BLP. It's also important to understand that Wikipedia in an encyclopedia, not your soapbox. If you're looking to "cancel" people, hold them accountable for their actions, etc., then I'm sorry but you're in the wrong place. It really doesn't matter if there's "a considerable amount of information corroborating", if there's no quality reliable sources, then we can't add it to Wikipedia. WP:BLP states: "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Also, if I recall correctly, his original twitter was suspended because he was making fun of Donald Trump. I don't think that's something that really needs to be put in the article. Sro23 (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand that it's important to be as objective as possible, but it's strange to me that, say, JonTron's Wikipedia wikipedia article can contain detailed instances of his viewpoints while Gilardi's doesn't, and the only real thing separating them is their notoriety. I also think you're misrepresenting my argument; I don't think we should editorialize about his deeds, but simply drawing attention to things that have objectively happened should fall within the scope of reason, imo. And no, he absolutely didn't get banned for making fun of Donald Trump; I used to follow his account and I can explicitly say that's not the case. The fact that you believe that is somewhat suspect to me, since it highlights the fact that you aren't really experienced with Twitter. A considerable amount of people mock Trump on a daily basis and that cannot be used as a basis to be banned (Not to mention the fact that he supports Trump himself (refer to his "2016 in review" video). Please clarify what you mean, because it sounds like a deflection to me. Ziodyne (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

From Gilardi himself:[2]. Regardless of why, the fact that his twitter got suspended isn't notable in itself, I can't find any reliable secondary sources discussing this, so it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. The JonTron controversy really isn't comparable, because multiple reliable, independent sources were reporting on that (Time, The Verge, Kotaku, Polygon, et c.), and I don't see that happening here. Sro23 (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Gilardi isn't exactly a reputable source, given the type of person he is (he has a propensity towards sarcasm and downplaying issues), as evidenced by his own reaction to being called out: https://twitter.com/BrainDumpTweets/status/1159591403992674304. Additionally, I already highlighted the difference between the controversies. My argument is that the difference in notoriety shouldn't preclude it from being mentioned on the Wikipedia page. I don't intend to drag this issue out, but I was wondering if I could get a 2nd opinion from another admin, just in case. Ziodyne (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

If Gilardi isn't a reputable source, then random people on twitter aren't reputable sources either. Also, I recommend you give Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth a read. "Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. Unlike some encyclopedias, Wikipedia does not try to impose "the truth" on its readers..." You seem to believe that just because something "objectively happened", it has to be on Wikipedia. Like I keep saying, if high quality sources haven't reported on it, then even if something objectively really did happen, it still doesn't belong in the article. Using random people's social media posts and blogs as references isn't going to cut it. You're welcome to ask for a second opinion, but I doubt you'll get a very different response. Wikipedia takes the BLP policy very seriously, I'm not kidding when I say we don't mess around with that. Sro23 (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. To be honest, I knew deep down there was little I could do after reading the wikipedia guidelines, and I shouldn't have doubted your impartiality. To be honest, I was just so damn frustrated. We're talking about someone who legitimately comes across as spiteful and cruel, who mocks marginalized groups as a way to delegitimize their concerns. And the fact that there's no real way of condemning that behavior, or the fact that he can evade being banned on Twitter is beyond upsetting. Sorry, I realize everything what I just said is irrelevant to the current conversation, but I just wanted to express my own feelings on the matter. Ziodyne (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Please join us with this dicussion

Hi Sro23,

May you please share you issues here on this talk page before reverting any changes on the List of iOS devices article. Thank you! 😊 149.167.60.107 (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No. As long as you continue to evade your block, I will continue to revert your changes, as per WP:BANREVERT. Sro23 (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Sro23 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! ~SS49~ {talk} 08:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Moowoo 6-14

Hello, can you salt all these categorys, they have been created like 5 times today+yesterday..

• Category:Moowoo6
• Category:Moowoo7
• Category:Moowoo8
• Category:Moowoo9
• Category:Moowoo10
• Category:Moowoo11
• Category:Moowoo12
• Category:Moowoo13
• Category:Moowoo14

--TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 18:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I've salted the ones that have been recreated over and over. The titleblacklist should hopefully take care of the rest. Sro23 (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Sexybaileycries

Could you please block user:Sexybaileycries ASAP. She clearly will not stop until blocked. CLCStudent (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHERAPY

Good times. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: Speaking of partial blocks, the other day was my first time using the feature, and I really had no idea what I'm doing. There's this LTA who keeps pestering stewards' talk pages, and they've been using Special:Contributions/2405:204:3000:0:0:0:0:0/36, which is a range you partially blocked, and I'm afraid I screwed your block up. Could you please review for me? Sro23 (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, PBLOCK can only handle 10 entries, it looks like you just overwrote the entries I made. However, I think that's OK for now, the LTA that targeted has been somewhat quiet lately. That's a huge range covering a lot of IP editors in India; I'd estimate less than half of the edits are constructive, but still, I'd be reluctant to kill the whole range with a full block. (P.S. For the 793 LTA, I use overlapping ranges sometimes to cover more than 10 entries. It's an imperfect workaround, but it helps). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. I blocked the range fully for a little bit, realized it was too wide and started to panic, and that's when things went downhill. It didn't seem fair preventing them from editing the entire User talk namespace either. Sorry about that and thanks for the response. Sro23 (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)