User talk:Srodgers1701
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LicentiaA, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
— Bilorv (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Ways to improve Brandy Zadrozny
[edit]Hello, Srodgers1701,
Thank you for creating Brandy Zadrozny.
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
There are several primary sources used as references (her own articles, etc) and the article needs more secondary, reliable references. Thank you.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Whiteguru (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
File:Sarah Everard CCTV 3 March 2021.jpg listed for discussion
[edit]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sarah Everard CCTV 3 March 2021.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. MIDI (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Unblock request: February 2022
[edit]
Srodgers1701 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I want to be unblocked as I'm sorry for engaging in sockpuppet activity. Originally, I made a new account because I wanted to change my username but did not know. Since I did not know how to change my username, I just made a new account but have been indefinitely blocked on the account and the IP. The block is no longer necessary because I've learned my lesson and will not engage in sockpuppetry in the future. The contributions history on my account shows that I have made legitimate contributions in the past such as fixing bad references and formatting and I will continue to do so if unblocked. After six months of not making appeals to UTRS or being able to edit my talk page, I hope you will believe me and take this as a good faith apology. All I want is to be unblocked so that I can again contribute to Wikipedia in a positive way. Additionally, I ask for a WP:CLEANSTART so that I can use an account name that does not contain my real name like it currently does. If granted a clean start, I will add the retired tag to my original account and not use it again. I would also like to add that I genuinely have no connection whatsoever to Zombiedude101z. I admit that I engaged in sockpuppet activity but this account genuinely was not one of them. :) Srodgers1701 (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
No checkuser evidence of recent block evasion. Note that this user has four confirmed socks, some of which they lied about. They are suspected of being a sock of Zombiedude101z and this has not been addressed as far as I can see, nor has the vandalism. I think they are a very poor candidate for unblocking until this is fully addressed, but, again, no evidence of recent block evasion, so that at least should weigh strongly in their favour. --Yamla (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Yamla: I would welcome an investigation into Zombiedude101z because I have nothing to hide as I am not a sockpuppet of that account. I only became aware of the user when I was accused of being a sockpuppet of them, which would not be possible as I had already received blocks against my account and IP in May 2021 so I could not edit or make an account. The accusation of being a sockpuppet of Zombiedude101z was added to my user page in August 2021 with that accusation not being addressed since. I don't what I have to say to be believed but I can assure you that I am not being malicious in any way and am being completely honest. I have apologised for the sockpuppet accounts that I did use.
--Srodgers1701 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Unblock discussion
[edit]Leaning decline, but won't oppose. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra I will preface this by saying that this by saying that it is highly likely that this earnest request will fall on deaf ears. I'm just frustrated that my unblock request is not being addressed and I don't know what I have to say to have my apology to be believed or accepted or my block removed. In my unblock request, I was honest, forthcoming and admitted that I had used sockpuppet accounts, originally stemming from not knowing how to change my username. I have not made any new accounts or made attempts at editing for over 6 months, and as Yamla has already acknowledged, there is no evidence that I have engaged in any form of block evasion which should support my case.
- I have been wrongly accused of being a sockpuppet of Zombiedude101z. I had never heard of or interacted with Zombiedude101z until I was accused of being a sockpuppet of them and I could not respond to the accusation. It is genuinely not possible for me to be a sockpuppet of Zombiedude101z as I was blocked from all editing and account creation in May 2021 and the accusation of being a sockpuppet of Zombiedude101z only appeared on my page in August 2021. The accusation that I was a sockpuppet of Zombiedude101z was added to my user page in August 2021 and no administrator has cared to address it beyond it merely being "suspected" sockpuppet activity. You are free to look at CheckUser info for yourself because there is no evidence that the account is linked to mine and I want this wrongful accusation to be dealt with and removed. I genuinely don't know where this accusation came from or why it was added to my page without substantiation or supporting evidence beyond merely asserting that it is true.
- You could add the '2nd chance' template and I could demonstrate to you the ways in which I can positively contribute to Wikipedia like I have done in the past before being blocked.
- - Srodgers1701 (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Fresh starting Is not a good idea. You would need to continue this account. I understand how frustrating this is. I am now inclined to unblock. It's going to take more discussion with other admins. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- I did not see the checkuser tag on your user page. I could have saved you some aggravation if I had. This is a checkuser block, so you should email the Arbitration Committee-- arbcom-en
wikimedia.org . Only check users can undo a checkuser block, and they are all checkusers ex officio. It might take them a little time to decide. They are mulling a frustrating case right now. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for understanding. I had previously tried to email ArbCom months ago and got no response or acknowledgement of my email. How long should they take to get around to even looking at my appeal then if "mulling a frustrating case right now" as you say?
- - Srodgers1701 (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Notice to Yamla
[edit]@Yamla: Note: This notice is not meant as a personal attack, rather a strong criticism of some actions you have taken as an admin. You can revert this message if you want but read it and try to understand my perspective first. Thank you.
This sort of behaviour that you have carried out against this user is the entire problem I have with the wiki community. This user clearly owned up to their mistakes yet it was you who put them in this mess in the first place. It was you who put the tag on their user page accusing them of being a sockpuppet of User:Zombiedude101z. Now you sweep this under the rug under the guise of procedural decline only just because I'm too lazy to fix it myself. It's this sort of nonsense that drove me off this site. It's clear from the discussion below this unblock request that because of one template on a user page, this user will have a really hard time being unblocked. And the evidence I have found from looking through your contributions tells me you just decided to put it on his userpage when they were already blocked. It was YOU who had the suspicion in the first place. And you yourself said there was no recent evidence of block evasion. Yet what did you do? You ignored them and then used the procedural decline to decline the unblock request. You could of dug into this matter more than a month ago but no, you just let time drag on until eventually this happened.
And trust me, this is probably about the 12th time I've seen this happen. I've been watching this talk page for over a month now to see what would happen and I was right. I'm trying to explain to you that this rigid stance on declining unblocks leads to you making decisions like this because it's possible you think once a rule breaker, always a rule breaker. And I'm sorry, this simply isn't true. I might be wrong about that. But it's the sort of stance I would think you take based on what has happened to this user. I want you to see that making it extremely hard to be unblocked only makes users more likely to create sockpuppet accounts, making this problem worse. Sombi6923 (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm fed up
[edit]Srodgers1701 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I’m at my wits’ end writing this appeal. So my last appeal was denied by Yamla as a “procedural decline” without actually saying what was wrong with it. I adhered to the Wikipedia unblocking guidance by understanding what I’ve been blocked for, stating why the block is no longer necessary and how I will make positive contributions in the future. My last appeal was open for 5 weeks as no administrator cared to address it and then Yamla denied it after choosing to ignore it running down the clock. Any admin reading this should be annoyed if they were falsely accused of being a sockpuppet of another account with the accusation not being addressed out of choice. Since Yamla added the template accusing me wrongly of being a sockpuppet of Zombiedude101z, they have not taken any care to investigate the accusation or remove it from having no evidence. The onus should be on an admin adding such a template to a user page accusing someone of sockpuppetry to be able to prove it with evidence. Yamla has even admitted that I have not engaged in any form of block evasion but has decided not to take any action on the false accusation that they added to my user page after I had already been blocked. I want this false accusation to be removed from my user page because simply asserting that something is true does not make it a fact. Read my previous appeal. I openly admitted that I did use sockpuppet accounts but Zombiedude101z was not one of them. You can look at the CheckUser info and you will find no evidence connecting my account to Zombiedude101z. It’s another matter whether this lack of evidence even matters to the considerations of some administrators. I have other administrators like Deepfriedokra who have stated that they are inclined to unblock. If some admins actually wanted to prevent ban evasion and sockpuppet accounts being created, it should not be next to impossible to be unblocked even after profusely apologising for past conduct. Some admins don’t even seem to want to unblock anyone and can’t be convinced to unblock anyone, no matter how well-reasoned an unblock request may be. This is a problem with the entire Wikipedia administrator community where some administrators are insulated from outside concerns and spiteful. Being an administrator on a website doesn’t make you a god. Some administrators can’t even be consistent in their own standards. The result of this toxicity and elitism on Wikipedia is that earnest new editors are shut out from what is meant to be a free community-built encyclopaedia. Srodgers1701 (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Does this sound familiar? "I say this honestly: my account Novaredant is not a sockpuppet account. No matter how many times I say this I am never being believed by administrators or acknowledged as acting in good faith and honesty.
" It's you saying the same thing as here, ranting about how you're not a sock puppet. That account is 
Confirmed to this account. You say here that you have used sock puppet accounts, but you're frustrated that nobody believes you that you're not a sock puppet of some other user. Given that you've lied in the past, why would we believe you now? You see the problem here, right? You're ranting about not being a sock puppet on two accounts, one of which you seem to be admitting here is a sock puppet account. Looking through some of your unblock requests and UTRS appeals, it's always our fault that you're blocked. Yamla is unfair, yama is a bully, yamla doesn't like you, yamla refuses to believe you, etc. You're even saying here that you have to make more socks because admins are so unfair that they won't unblock you. Dude. I will straight up tell you how to get unblocked. Step one is the same for everyone: read WP:GAB. Now, compose an unblock message that does not mention the name of anyone but yourself, your sock puppets, and Zombiedude (or whoever it is that you're suspected of being). Now that you're observing WP:NOTTHEM and speaking only of yourself, list all the sock puppets that you've ever used. Then, do not justify your actions or threaten to continue engaging in the same behavior that got you blocked. Your unblock request should be something like "I did this, I won't do it again, and here's my plan to avoid doing it again." Not "I didn't really do this, and it's justified anyway because Yamla made me do it because he's unfair and mean, and I'll do it again if you don't unblock me." However, you'll have to do this through UTRS because it's obvious from the CU tool that you've evaded your block once again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Orphaned non-free image File:TomFordBrandLogo.png
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:TomFordBrandLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
