User talk:Sro23/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

your recent block of a Tornatore2007 sock

revdel or talk page protection? [1] Meters (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I can keep an eye on it. Sro23 (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I blanked it and just wanted you to be aware. Meters (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Toxicity is a two-way street

Do you not see the irony in making a "toxic" comment like this about a group of people whom you accuse of being "toxic"? The sheer bloody arrogance on display here is astonishing. Here's a tip: If you don't want people to be "toxic", about anything, then don't be "toxic" yourself. Cassianto^Talk 19:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It's what most of us have been thinking for a long while now but were too afraid to say. I call it like I see it. Sro23 (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No, you do not speak for "most of us". You speak for you. And you are a very small fish in a very big pond. Perhaps you think you're above everyone else? Cassianto^Talk 19:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Sro23 speaks for me as well. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, oh well, I stand corrected! Lol Cassianto^Talk 19:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, here's an idea: why don't you get back on private email and rally the troops to hold yet another RfC, this time asking those to give a show of hands of who Sro23 speaks for? Cassianto^Talk 20:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, is that an accusation of tag-teaming? You're once again failing to follow your own advice about assuming good faith. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You and SchroCat don't like the direction consensus has shifted towards on Talk:Frank Sinatra, and you don't like what I had to say there, so now you're trying to deflect, dodge, and redirect. We don't tolerate this way of behaving in new users. If it were, say, all newcomers bullying established veterans, I can guarantee you the newbies wouldn't last a day before being blocked. I just think it's unfair that because these anti-IBers have been around for a while, we let them get away with more. Sro23 (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Has it? I must be looking at another RfC? Oh well, I'm not here to talk about that, I'm here to talk about your ironic comment. Point made in that regard. This seems to be a bit of a "toxic" page, so I'll let you get back to what ever it is you do around here. Cassianto^Talk 20:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPI case

Hi! Would you care to take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15? It is by my reckoning an open-and-shut case, given the WP:WHOIS evidence and the IP's comment on the case itself. TompaDompa (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, RoySmith got to it shortly after I wrote here. TompaDompa (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You reverted an edit, that has since been oversighted, that harassed multiple editors. Thanks. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 00:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. It's an LTA who has literally thousands of accounts, and his MO is to find old blocked accounts that still have Talk access allowed and abuse his talk page. Sad to say but the harassment doesn't even phase me anymore, probably because I encountered abuse - including death threats on more than one occasion - fairly early on when I first started editing, and what do you know, I'm still here.

Some people have nothing better to do than spending time threatening and harassing strangers on the internet. Sro23 (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Red Candle Games (August 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hellknowz was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Red Candle Games and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Red Candle Games, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sro23! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

SPI

If you haven't seen it already, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EditorManagerPH. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Singora SPI

I hope you are fine. In case you didn't had the ping notification, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Singora, given your past experience with the SPI.[2] Capitals00 (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Above is resolved. The SPI which I had filed is now known as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TerentiusNew. Capitals00 (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

Looks like 37.235.108.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is evading 167.24.24.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)'s ban on Ecce Homo (Martínez and Giménez, Borja)... ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

About your block

Hey. I saw you blocked an experienced recent changes patroller from editing a page for edit warring. You are probably aware of this, but the reason he edit warred was because the IP editor kept making the same change to the article despite other editors telling him not to. I see that his reasoning for edit warring was not an exception to the 3RR rule. Was he still wrong to do this? Are there any other exceptions? Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that IP editor wasn't adding copyright or BLP violations, vandalism or the like, so it was a content dispute. Prahlad balaji, I'm very sorry about the block. I really do not enjoy handing out blocks for edit-warring, but you have to understand, you made something like 10 reverts, so I had to be fair. Sro23 (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Sro23, I was just telling them to go on the talkpage, like they told me to. That is not warring, that is them being ignorant after a 3rr warning and multiple reverts. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You still broke 3rr, and you were not exempt under WP:3RRNO. Feel free to appeal your block and another admin may review it, but like I said, I was only being fair. Both editors were edit-warring over what tense to use. That's not undoing vandalism, that's a content dispute. Sro23 (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Sro23, fine, I will appeal later. See ya. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 00:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, I suppose I crossed a line with the talk about "A Long Walk To Water". I think I'll delete the whole section as being inappropriate in the way it asks for comments. Wastrel Way (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Eric

Another Evleckis sock

Based on edits like this and this, their first edit, user:Scrapewell is another sock of User:Harry Shuffle who you blocked a couple of days ago. Valenciano (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Since I semi-protected your talk page that Nazi can't leave any messages and it's gotten quiet, so I'm giving you a beer. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Drmies. Sro23 (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Icewhiz

Surely there must be a hint to what may have banned him. For most trolls, one can imagine why he got banned. Any evidnce of his edits? Then we can find his socks more easily. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

IP resuming sock activity

Thank you for your block of User:JoinOnIn. They have resumed activity under their latest IP, User:179.53.1.202, from the expected geolocation for the sockmaster. Could you extend the block to the IP please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, the IP has been blocked. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

treats --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Quality Posts Here

If I may, I think you were perhaps over hasty in closing this SPI report. It was quite noticeable that the editor immediately stopped posting after I launched that SPI. Also, given the disruptive editing and POV slant they are seeking to impose I really don't think their motivation here at wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. I find the gaps in the editing history rather suspicious even with the accounts they have disclosed and I haven't seen any explanation for having multiple accounts. What options exist to pursue this further. WCM_email 15:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

There are many reasons why people take long absences from editing; sockpuppetry isn't the only explanation. Quality Posts Here's explanation for starting a new account was they wanted a clean start and forgot the password to the old account, and that sounds reasonable enough to me. Even if the user seems suspicious to you, we generally don't block accounts for being "suspicious", there has to be a specific sockmaster in mind. CU was run and Quality Posts Here was found unrelated to HarveyCarter, and given all this, I'm quite confident this isn't HarveyCarter. You're still free to report the user to a variety of noticeboards (ANI, AN, NPOVN), etc. Sro23 (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User K7797tyhkhijjn

I noticed that you blocked User:K7797tyhkhijjn for block evasion. Given the pattern of behavior, should this account be added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/8yd, or is it not worth the trouble? I have a suspicion that this person could become a chronic problem. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

With these kinds of socks, it's usually best to adhere to WP:DENY and revert, block, ignore. Sro23 (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The Who

If you look at 'The Who: The Official History', the band clearly refer to their proper noun as The Who. This makes sense grammatically. Reducing it to the Who does not.

It requires us to be specific, because some bands do use lowercase as a matter of style. Thanks. --Danny Mamby (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Your reasoning is logical, but unfortunately it goes against what was decided by the Wikipedia community a few years back. And if we make that change to The Who, there are several dozen other articles of musical groups that will also need to be edited, and sometimes it's better to just save your energy and stick with the status quo, even if the rules don't make sense. Sro23 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A CAT for you!

Saw your recent page protections and had to laugh a bit. At least some things never change.

EvergreenFir (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Heh, you would think as the years go by and people grow older, eventually they would grow out of childish vandalism, but apparently not. Sro23 (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

2601:81:C400:DC30:0:0:0:0/64

FYI: After you blocked 2601:81:C400:DC30:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) a new account called Leaf from the tree (talk · contribs) registered to continue the edit war in List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll. --Pudeo (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Question on your revert

Why did you revert my edit here? I checked the source again, and it still doesn't list Lauren Faust as one of his influences. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea: my apologies for not looking carefully. I meant to revert disruptive edits by a blocked user and IP and hadn't even seen your edit there. I have restored your edit. Sro23 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries, it happens. Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Abominable

I see you got another one of his but I'm not sure if you were familiar with this, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Abusive editing. Someone had accused Dory Funk and other editor (still active) of being socks. Ironically, I suspected the accuser of being Mangoeater1000... they always seem to be clashing with one another. I was considering opening an SPI involving the active user but if you have ruled them out then I won't waste the time.LM2000 (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, those socks often liked to edit war with each other. I'm too tired to think deeply about this, but Mango socks that have been around for a while usually can't help themselves but edit school/university articles, and I'm not seeing any of that from Dilbaggg yet. Could just be the sockpuppets are getting more sophisticated. If you really want my opinion, I'm pretty confident all three users (Dilbaggg, Kesha, and Dory Funk) are socks, though I'm not sure who Kesha is. Could be Abominable too, I don't know, please feel free to start an SPI. With Dory Funk it was obvious enough that CU didn't seem necessary for a block. I just wouldn't be surprised if Kesha ends up CU-blocked. Like I said, I don't have the energy to look into this right now. Sro23 (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and feel free to blank this to discourage further vandalism. I'll keep an eye on it, one is already at SPI and admins at ANI know about it, so I feel confident that we'll figure it out quickly. I just wanted to make sure you knew since you're close to the situation and blocked one of the accounts in question.LM2000 (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Dory funk has indeed been proven a sock, my accusation stands correct LM2000: [3] but your accusation remains false, let check users verify [4] Dilbaggg (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Partial unblock request

Hi, I have received an email from a user who you blocked early this month. This is a user I also blocked previously, under a different username. (Since I believe they are not an adult, I would rather not state their username here, but I'd be happy to specify by email.) They would like user talk page access restored in order to address the situation. This user has a history of violating several policies, but I believe their intentions are not bad, and I would like to hear what they have to say. I would like to restore user talk page access, and I will monitor the situation; but since you are the one who applied the most recent block, I wanted to check with you first. Thoughts? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I also get the impression the user is younger, but that doesn't excuse the way they behaved. I won't object if you restore TP access, but please take it away if they start abusing it again. Sro23 (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks for the quick reply, and I will be sure to keep an attentive eye on the situation. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: The user is going to take the standard offer and try for an unblock again after a few months. Sro23 (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: This is unrelated, but I just realized it was your video ('Citing sources on Wikipedia') that taught me how to add my first reference years ago, way back when I had no idea what I was doing. So thanks!! Sro23 (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks your help by --Sunuraju (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

User:Shaddai Wright

For the record, I've revoked Shaddai Wright (talk · contribs)'s talk page access again. After the rigmarole vis-a-vis their most recent request to be unblocked, all they've done is posted multiple screeds, and ultimately this is turning into the same time sink that it was before. This user clearly has issues and at this time I don't see any benefit to allowing them to edit the project. Thanks. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It's probably for the best. I can't help but empathize, because early on when I first started editing, I was younger and a lot more immature and also ready to quit whenever things didn't go my way. Somehow I managed to never get blocked. I have no clue how I would've taken it had that happened, though I'm sure it wouldn't have been pretty... I can even remember typing up and being this close to posting a WP:FLOUNCE-type rant and leaving. Thankfully I eventually grew out of it. Sro23 (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. During the whole unblock phase, I had considered posting words of encouragement because, despite the NPA-violating rant against me which resulted in their talk page access being revoked originally, I was willing to assume that things had changed. However, given the "retirement" rant, the retraction, the subsequent rant, and what is ultimately the inability on their part to take any ownership of their actions, I don't think it's worth our time, unfortunately. I appreciate that you extended the olive branch to them, and for letting me know about it, but, alas, WP:AGF only goes so far. That aside, cheers and happy holidays, my friend. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenebrae at WP:ANI

Since I've quoted you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tenebrae, it seems only appropriate to notify you, as you may wish to comment. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Not my best moment, to say the least

Hi Sro23, and thanks for your message. Yeah, that edit was just completely wrong, and will always be a black mark against me. I do have something of an, ahem, overactive sense of humour. Like Christopher Smart's cat Jeoffry, I'm a mixture of gravity and waggery. To be honest, it takes a supreme effort of self-discipline 24/7 for me not to pull pranks like that. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Shirt58: If you get the urge, you are free to mess around in your own userspace pretty much to your heart's content, but article space is off-limits. I can't believe I'm lecturing a user (let alone a sysop) who has been here for 14 years that inserting vandalism into articles isn't okay. Sorry for the late-ish reply. Sro23 (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Sro23,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! NASCARfan0548 ↗ 23:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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

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

Rajput

So what's going on? I see you blocked one of the several IPs.[5] I'm thinking of blocking [6] for not sourcing. Doug Weller talk 19:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller That wide range was originally partial-blocked for spamming, and then an unrelated LTA started using it which is where my block comes in. The user in question doesn't seem to be connected to my block, but I say go for it if you deem it necessary. Sro23 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll sleep on it. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just wanted to express my gratitude for your protection of List of compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich a couple of weeks ago. Is there anywhere I can petition to request a more permanent solution for the problem on that page? You can catch up on most of the saga here, but the nitty-gritty is that a single user has been obsessed with incorporating the lead from the composer's main article (including with uncorrected factual errors) for half a year now. They have been opposed in this by at least three other editors aside from myself. Instead of collaborating with other editors, they appear set on antagonizing their fellow editors with personal insults and refusing to heed any advice. The work of admins who have semi-protected the page has been deeply appreciated, but the same user always returns as soon as any blocks are lifted. Ideally IP addresses from the range the user typically uses would be blocked permanently from editing the page, but not sure whether such a thing is possible. Any ideas or help in this matter would be received very gratefully. Thank you kindly in advance. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24: You can learn more about this troll at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. He's been giving us grief for years and years, so I get your frustrations. You can always request re-protection at WP:RFPP, but I don't think that will be necessary anymore. I now have that page watchlisted and am ready to play whack-a-mole when he returns. He uses dynamic IP's so I can't permanently block them. Feel free to message me the next time he pops up. Sro23 (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

He’s back at it on the page. FYI. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know...Sro23 (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Issue with sock account

In the article List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll Leafe From A Tree is a now blocked sock account. You had made the same revert to the “stable version” they claimed but it was not really as it removes sourced information he removed under various IPs during the time as well to edit war and censor for nationalist endeavors. So I restored the deleted RS information. This was in November but wanted you to be aware incase you wonder why I reverted the sockpuppet’s removals. If you have any questions, let me know and ping me here and will be happy to explain further. I’m surprised no one noticed the puppets removal and gaming. Though it took me a while to figure things out. Being that the warring prties are long blocked it is stable now. Hope you agree. Take care and Happy New Ywar. OyMosby (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There were at least two different sockfarms (User:Jack90s15 and User:Accopulocrat) warring with each other in that article and others. It happens quite often that two different sockpuppeteers will seek out and edit war with each other, especially the nationalistic/ethnic warrior type socks. I'm fine with you reverting to whatever sock version you want, as long as you take responsibility for whatever content you add/remove. Sro23 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Noted and thanks. The information seems sourced so looks more like ethno wars as you said.Cheers OyMosby (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect something similar [here] with this Istinar fellow and to other IPs being all the same person. Again ethnic warriors and such. What do you think? Many editors are trying to revert the person. And the other two IPs within a similar time frame, after being blocked this account shows up. OyMosby (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely has the characteristics of a sock. I don't have the energy to look into this, but you're free to start a sockpuppet investigation. Sro23 (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries, was just looking for your insight since you have experience in this matter. If they persist in disruptive behavior, I will compile a report. No idea if they are already creating another new account sock. Cheers! OyMosby (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting that vandal's talk page. I hated the insults he gave to me and IanDBeacon. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You know, with Nate Speed, it's best to not even leave him any warning, just silently report to AIV straight away, linking to WP:LTA/NS. Creating IP talk pages only encourages him and inevitably leads to more block evasion and edit wars. Sro23 (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Evlekis again?

I'm confused, is that Evlekis? Or am I going up the wrong tree again? Pahunkat (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

No you're right. Impersonating new users, unrelated vandal accounts/other sockpuppets/spammers is part of his MO. Sro23 (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have to learn fast. I'm used to new users creating alternative accounts to contest deletions, but not LTAs impersonating sockpuppets/spammers. Pahunkat (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

BTW they just registered an account impersonating my username very well, if Pakunhat contacted you that wasn't me. Pahunkat (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yup, that was Evlekis. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for reverting the random talk page edit from the IP. That wasn't me who did that. So thank you for not jumping the gun. Modern Major General  I quote the fights historical 14:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Double standards as well as lying... unsurprising, if depressing

So despite there being an excellent rationale for the edit, you’ve decided that you can’t see passed the editor to the content? No great surprises there: you’ve shown yourself incapable of basic standards in other aspects, so expecting any standards in terms of content is a stretch too far. You’ve lied twice in previous blocks, and now it’s double standards in ignoring the IP who pinged you? It’s all rather second rate, if unsurprising. Never mind ... time to reset the router and continue being more of a benefit than you will ever be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.185.105 (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine. I don't care if you keep socking or attack other editors because I'm done. I can't do this anymore. In all the years I've had dealings with sockpuppets, no one's ever made me want to rip my hair out more than you. So congratulations for finally breaking me. Sro23 (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sro23, look at it this way, when they stoop to insults and personal attacks, it means they can't push their edit in through consensus, so the only other option is to drive editors away by creating a toxic environment. Ravensfire (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Ditto. You're a good admin. Hang in there. BilCat (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Ditto from me as well. You are one of the best Sro23 and a valuable asset to the 'pedia. Please take care of yourself and stay well. MarnetteD|Talk 01:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I just thought I'd be a better one by this point. But thank you Ravensfire, BilCat, and MarnetteD for the words of encouragement. I'm at my wit's end with this one, but the good news is, I get to pick and choose what I take to heart. As the saying goes, "those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind." Sro23 (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I saw this and figured I might as well pile on - Thank you for that block, I was getting tired of reverting. You are appreciated! AviationFreak💬 05:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It's the same as this troll I blocked back in September. Sro23 (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

03/02/2021

Hello. I have undone your revert — "I feel my case has provided sufficent evidence to be reviewed by an uninvolved party. The subject has been reported twice before. Please do not remove this again and allow an uninvolved admin to review it properly. I have objected to your revertion, if you want to undo it again, I suggest you get a bureaucrat to do so. I believe my claim is not 'completely baseless'."

Your objection worries me as it seems unbefitting for a admin to object to a democratic process because of a report with evidence that many others would consider to be suffcient to under go due process.

Kind regards J.Turner99 (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that two long-term users both reverted you on a high profile article does not mean they are sockpuppets. Do not file bad faith or retaliatory reports. Disruptive SPI's like that aren't even worth archiving, which is why I reverted you. Sro23 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do you just assume I filed the report out of retaliation? Why not look at the substance of my claim and allow more time for discussion? You did not even respond to my CheckUser request. J.Turner99 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

There was no substance to your claims, and your CU request would have been declined. The only evidence you brought up was "these two editors both reverted me, therefore they must be socks". You are being disruptive. Now drop the stick. Sro23 (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I offered multiple links and time scales. I request another uninvolved clerk to review this. J.Turner99 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It was reviewed by uninvolved RoySmith when it was archived. He wouldn't have done that if he saw any outstanding concerns. Sro23 (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps RoySmith did not want to get into conflict with another admin. J.Turner99 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I stand by my move to close the case with no action. I'm not sure where the best place to go about making complaints is, but you're free to start a new section on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. I'm confident any SPI clerk would have made the same decision. Sro23 (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sro23, Which SPI are we talking about? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, RoySmith, it's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NorthBySouthBaranof. Sro23 (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@J.Turner99: Maybe calling your report "bad faith" wasn't the right choice of words. However, and I understand you're a relatively new user, competence is required. In order for checkusers and SPI clerks to take your CU request against two veteran editors who have been around for nearly a decade seriously, you would have to provide robust and sound evidence of socking, probably spanning back years. Otherwise, we are not going to violate the privacy of these editors without good reason, and your SPI did not give a good reason. Sro23 (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• When I archive a case, I'm looking mostly for technical issues like the case being formatted correctly, tags applied as needed, etc. I look the whole thing over as a sanity check, but don't usually dig deeply into reviewing the closing clerk's decision. In this case, I do remember spending a bit more time than usual because the "bad faith" comment piqued my interest. I didn't see anything in particular that worried me, so I went ahead and archived it. I can assure you, however, that I'm perfectly capable of questioning other admin's actions when I feel the need.

In any case, looking at this further, I see two editors with extensive editing histories going back 8-10 years. That alone doesn't mean they can't be socks, but my experience is that most CUs will insist on significantly stronger behavioral evidence than was presented here before entertaining a CU check on users with that kind of history, so I'm totally behind declining the CU request. I also looked at the timecards for NorthBySouthBaranof and JayBeeEll. To be blunt, these are not the same person. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks RoySmith. That's my thought process when archiving too. I usually just make sure everyone's been blocked and tagged accordingly, the SPI is filed under the right account, that all i's have been dotted and t's crossed, rather than challenge the decision of the closing clerk/admin. And I agree while it is possible for two long-term highly active users over the span of years and years to be socks of each other, it is exceedingly rare. Sro23 (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Chuck Mincho

I see you've blocked Chuck Mincho for being an obvious sock - I was hanging on to AGF there. However, you didn't revoke TPA - is this just a garden variety troll? Pahunkat (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't feel the need to for this troll but you can ask me or another admin to revoke TPA if they start abusing it. Sro23 (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I was just wondering if they were a 'normal' garden-variety troll, given the block summary - but if this is just a normal troll, I'll leave it at that. Pahunkat (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You were right, it looks the IP-hopping BLP vandal again - or Evlekis given that they were somehow able to revert the last edit that I made? See this message left on my TP - I am not sure what to think as of now. Pahunkat (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

LTA's will often imitate each other. Often times it's just not worth the effort trying to determine who is who. Sro23 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Sro23, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve, Happy editing, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 17:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

My deepest appreciation for what you do

I just want to express my profoundest thanks for the trouble you’ve taken in reverting that pest’s edits over at the article upon which they have become unhealthily fixated. My guess is that they’re probably the same person who harassed you in that other post on your talk page a little while ago. Their cheerless smugness suggests as much. I almost feel sorry for them in a way—being a lonely obsessive desperate for any attention seems like a wretched fate. But I’m grateful for people like yourself who do their part to counter the tide of foolery and unreason. Thank you again. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries CurryTime7-24. The LTA page says this user has been causing trouble like this since 2004. There's been countless ANI reports against them, they've been blocked innumerable times, community banned in 2015, yet they keep coming back. You would think after a while one would eventually give up and find a new hobby. Sro23 (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Linac11

Thanks for the help there. Somehow in some 13 years, I think that was my first SPI. StarM 03:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem. There are certain behind-the-scenes processes of Wikipedia I also haven't and probably never will touch, and I think it's just fine to pick a specific area you enjoy working on and stick with it. Sro23 (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh socks

Hi Sro, I saw that you blocked Special:Contributions/January2020 as a sock of Hoggardhigh. Given that the sock's first edit was on October 4,2020, with a gap until March 8, 2021, would a Checkuser scan be useful here? (I realize one may have already been run, and if that's confidential, I understand). Thanks. BilCat (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@BilCat: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh. Sro23 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Is that something non-admin editors can do? I've filed SPIs before using Twinkle, but I've not done one just for checkuser scan. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think so, though it might be better if you contact the CU team or a checkuser individually. Sro23 (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Broken reference

Hi Sro23, last year you deleted some revisions of International Organization for Migration. Unfortunately it seems one of those revisions introduced an undefined reference "auto". Could you please look at the deleted revisions and try to figure out what the intended reference was? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If it's all the same to you, I just removed the section. It was introduced by a troll LTA known for adding subtle vandalism and inaccuracies in articles, and I don't trust any content started by them. Sro23 (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

SPI case of GiaoThongVN

Hi. I have never interacted here in the enwiki community (I almost always interact in Vietnamese over at viwiki), but I hope that it is appropriate to reach out to you like this, about this case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi. We believe you were right about the possibility that 30ChuaPhaiLaTet & co were wrongly identified as Tobias Conradi. In fact, there is a discussion going on right now about creating a meta:Requests for comment to remove the erroneous ban on 30ChuaPhaiLaTet. But that is not the biggest problem that viwiki is facing now. The most serious issue we have to deal with is having one user weaponizing the SPI against another user who he disagrees with. I guess you could already tell that the community was very concerned by this SPI of GiaoThongVN from reading the Comments by users from vi.wikipedia. If GiaoThongVN is banned, we are afraid this will set a precedent for future weaponization of SPI's, or retaliation between users in general.

In a typical scenario, if the user who requests the SPI has an ulterior motive, will that SPI still be taken seriously?

Given this serious issue with the SPI, what would be the appropriate course of action to take to right this wrong and help GiaoThongVN, whose contributions are actually beneficial to viwiki, in this case? --Lacessori (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I did what I could and suggested a new SPI be created for the 30ChuaPhaiLaTet group, in order to avoid a global lock. It seems this all started last year when one admin thought they might be Tobias Conradi because they made some disruptive moves, and that was enough to warrant a global lock of 30ChuaPhaiLaTet and the other accounts, apparently. GiaoThongVN will probably have to stay blocked here though. I'm not sure what the policy is on your wiki, but on the English wikipedia it is very frowned upon to create so many accounts, one after the other, without at least disclosing your previous account(s). The oldest account found, ChanComThemPho, did not seem like a new user to me at all, so I'm very suspicious. Why are ChanComThemPho and PhutThu89 blocked on viwiki? When it comes to weaponizing SPI's against other users, I don't really know what to tell you. Retaliatory SPI's generally aren't taken seriously here, and may even result in the filer being blocked for personal attacks. And admins on the Vietnamese wikipedia shouldn't block users there just because they are blocked on the English wikipedia. Every wikipedia has its own rules and guidelines. Users blocked on other wikis are allowed to edit the English wikipedia so long as they stick to policy and follow the rules, and I think the same should be true for blocked English wikipedia users moving on to other wikis. Sro23 (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

These reverts come across as a "respect my authoritah". The matter is of admittedly minor importance, but I find your actions... disappointing. No such user (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't me who originally collapsed the comments btw. I was only trying to defend a fellow SPI clerk. One of our duties is to collapse or remove off-topic comments. Sorry to disappoint. Sro23 (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Thanks for blocking them - could you close up Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamish Ross and merge Hedgehog officer into there if necessary? Pahunkat (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CrnogorskiKralj

Just checking to make sure you intended to delete this. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I got mixed up on which account is older. Sorry, I don't know why I'm having troubles today. Sro23 (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sro23, No worries. Mondays are hard. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

spihelper

Hello Sro23, I'm informing SPI clerks who use spihelper about the new spihelper userbox. Jerm (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikitext	userbox	where used
{{User wikipedia/spihelper}}	This user manages sockpuppet investigations with spihelper.	linked pages

Jaredgk2008 not yet an LTA?

As I found, the LTA subpage of Jaredgk2008 is not yet created. I thought about creating one, but I would find it more time-consuming than I did for another LTA user. --George Ho (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't even bother starting one, it would only feed the troll. Sro23 (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Worthy of a symphony from Dmitri Dmitriyevich himself

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		With deepest gratitude for all your hard work in protecting a certain article we all know and love. Thank you. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Semiprotection at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matty Healy?

Maybe time for semi-protection at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matty Healy until the discussion is over? First choice might be an appropriate rangeblock, if one exists. But I get the suspicion that the IP hopping is deliberate. — Bilorv (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblock not feasible as the IP's are from all over the place. Could you make a request at WP:RFPP? I already voted and don't want to get accused of making an "involved" protection or something, but I also don't want to play whac-a-mole all day. Sro23 (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it—now semi'd. — Bilorv (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Sro23, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 16:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 16:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Another one

37.245.211.33155.246.151.38 (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Undoing protection

Hey Sro23, Thanks for the protection and repeated banning of the sock. However, there ae some discussions in RSN that it would be good to comment on. Can you undo the protection? If sock comes back protection can go up again Thanks!155.246.151.38 (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Ocherman

This might be another, an IP SPA targeting the same user. 2001:8F8:1DC4:4B40:1699:DF71:DB87:832.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Pipsally Sock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/31.210.27.119

Check edits, clearly block evasion Norlymid12 (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Since you're into birds...

I got this guy in my back yard last year. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I really like the little birds, they're pretty funny aren't they? 😄 Sro23 (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The nurse anesthetist / anesthesiologist page

Hey there I’ve been managing this page for our national association for years. The correct revision was mine at edited by Mmackinnon (talk | contribs) at 05:17, 22 August 2021 . These vandals are attacking for political reasons but the edits were correct and referenced. How do I go about getting this fixed?

Thank you sir. Mmackinnon (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

“Nurse anesthesiologist” is a made up term that’s not accepted by any organization or governmental agency. 67.189.59.171 (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This is an approved title and exists in Webster’s dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nurse%20anesthesiologist Mmackinnon (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Even Webster’s, which is hardly the definitive source of this type of information, acknowledges that the title is refuted. It’s literally made up by the AANA. Problem is, no one else accepts the term. Anesthesiologist is a physician, and term is wholly inappropriate for use by anyone else. “-Oligist” implies an expert, and no one other than a physician is an expert in the provision of anesthesia. You’re simply a midlevel subordinate. 67.189.59.171 (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

“-ologist” …correcting typo. 67.189.59.171 (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

As you can see this is purely trade protectionism on the part of our detractors.

Here is the aana document recognizing it (one of many)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c1ez5m4d6fdrp3w/AANA%20Rec%20of%20Nurse%20Anesthesiologist%20as%20a%20ttitle%202019.pdf?dl=0 Mmackinnon (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This is also another document recognizing it as approved and appropriate. I use it myself everyday.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9yyph9qrbo1ruki/AANA%20crna-fact-sheet%20Included%20Nurse%20Anesthesiolgist.pdf?dl=0 Mmackinnon (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

nurse anesthetist

He greatly overstates the training and capabilities of CRNAs, who are midlevel providers. Also, “nurse anesthesiologist” is not accepted by any group or governmental organization outside of the AANA, who literally just made the term up. 67.189.59.171 (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Not at all. I am and have been totally correct. Even Webster’s dictionary agreed. Your attacks are nothing more than an attempt to control others but Neither YOU or any physician group gets to define us.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nurse%20anesthesiologist Mmackinnon (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, we do, because physicians are captains of the ship, like it or not. Nurse anesthetists are subordinates, plain and simple. 67.189.59.171 (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

No that is no accurate. nurse anesthesiologists work independently all over the world and the USA. You wanting it to be different does not make it so.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c1ez5m4d6fdrp3w/AANA%20Rec%20of%20Nurse%20Anesthesiologist%20as%20a%20ttitle%202019.pdf?dl=0 Mmackinnon (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mmackinnon: I blocked the IP for personal attacks, so you can stop responding to them. I have no opinion on this dispute, there seemed to be multiple users edit-warring on the page which is why I protected it. If you are involved with or otherwise have a vested interest in the AANA, then I'm sorry to say this, but you probably shouldn't be pushing their agenda per our conflict of interest policy. Sro23 (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I am simply a CRNA who is a member of the aana which is the national org for all CRNAs. I’m not sure how this would be a conflict of interest. We (CRNAs) started this wiki page long ago and have had to protect it from political physicians for years. This is just more of their attempts to control the narrative.

Should I not want it to be accurate?I am Confused? Mmackinnon (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

When you say you've been "managing" the page for years it's understandable why I might get the impression you are being paid to edit or work for the org. It doesn't matter who started the page, nobody owns it. Content ultimately must be supported by reliable sources and if there's a dispute, then editors have to come to a consensus on the article talk page, not edit war. "Managing" the same one or two pages for years and years has to get boring after a while, do you have other interests or expertise in something else? Wikipedia could always use additional or better quality references, typo/grammar fixes, etc. in articles, especially the more obscure ones! Sro23 (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Well I am certainly not employed by or getting paid by the aana ;) I am a CRNA who uses nurse anesthesiologist and just wants to protect the integrity of my professions image via this page is all. So really, this is pretty much my expertise. References were added, but the detractors did not care. They just wanted to rewrite history it seems and sadly we are used to that from them.

I guess my question is, if I have references what was there, it is accurate and people come along and radically edit it, what is my alternative but to change it back and give them the warnings I did? What can I do besides request page protection which I did?

Unfortunately, the version currently up is missing information. Some of which changed last weekend at our national conference.

This is all I’ve even edited on Wikipedia so I don’t know if there is more I should have done or could have done?

Thanks again. Mmackinnon (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

If you are asking what you could have done differently, it would have been better if you refrained from edit-warring and respected the 3rr rule. You and the other parties were all accusing each other of vandalism, and it seemed like you were warring over terminology. To an outsider, this type of rapid reversion is very disruptive to Wikipedia. The next time this happens, you need to instead stop reverting and start a discussion on the corresponding talk page where consensus can be reached. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nursing would be a good place to ask for an outside opinion on the issue. Sro23 (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I’ve tried that in the past on the page talk. However as you can see by their statements they don’t care about the facts. So if I don’t revert their edits they simply stay there as disinformation?

So they edit something, it’s inaccurate, we talk and they still will not change. Who decides if it should be edited back? Mmackinnon (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

If you and the other editor can't work things out between yourselves, then the next step would be Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Sometimes it can be helpful to ask for a third opinion. Sro23 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh good to know! Appreciate the info! Mmackinnon (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Another Block evasion of Pipsally

per [7], block evasion Boriswerk23 (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)