User talk:Sro23/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Adminship?

Why don't you run for adminship or see if you may pass at WP:ORCP? I think that you would be a great guy for the job, and having the tools would certainly help you in your work. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The truth is I deal with low self-confidence. (Also I think there are a lot more candidates more qualified than I). It's just not a position I can see myself in. Sro23 (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Guess you wouldn't want to subject yourself to the crazy beast that is RfA. I think that you would pass, though. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth so do I. John from Idegon (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I can understand why anyone would want to avoid that process. I think you'd make a good admin though. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

For the record, you have your first "WHAT???? You're not an admin!!!" support vote. -- Dolotta (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It's ultimately your choice. RfA is rough for most, but I actually think yours would be pretty non-controversial (outside of the usual "content creation" crowd). I would certainly support. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Say it does go horribly wrong. From a cost-benefit perspective, it wouldn't be worth the anxiety. Sro23 (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cada mori

Hi. Could you please take another look at this SPI? It is fairly standard procedure for a CU to be run in cases such as this even if there is only one non-stale user. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Asking again as it has been 2 weeks without a response. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry Smartse. I've been pretty checked out on life these past couple weeks. Sro23 (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Careyjamesbalboa

Hey Sro23, Bbb23 made several checkuser blocks earlier today on Careyjamesbalboa after I indeffed the user. I was wondering if these socks should be tagged or denied? By the way, I think you would make a good admin too! Alex Shih^Talk 14:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's probably better to WP:DENY. Sro23 (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh

Sro23, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh, and see if it's filed properly? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wattsj528

Is it just me, or is Follow30 a Wattsj528 sock? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely him. There's too much intersection with IP socks, plus this edit to an extremely obscure article basically proves it. Sro23 (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, indefinitely blocked. I'm getting better at identifying Wattsj528 socks, so I might be able to some useful range blocks eventually. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Hello User:Sro23. I have created a sockpuppet investigation that may involve you, see at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Inevitaaaron. In January of this year you reverted an edit and recently two accounts have mostly reinstated the edit you reverted back then, as well as behaving similarly on an article I have on my watchlist. I am not sure if I filed the investigation correctly (have not filed one before); could you look over it and check if it is formatted correctly? Hrodvarsson (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I looked it over and everything was formatted corretly. Sro23 (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Could you also tell me if "Likely bordering on Confirmed" means the accounts will be blocked or is there another stage? Judging by the past couple days, one of the accounts is going to go back to the Morrissey article and reinstate their edits again within the next 12 hours. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss the soon to built, Interaction Timeline

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Who's this?

I'm pretty sure this is a sockmaster, but not sure the name: [1]. Any idea?— Preceding unsigned comment added by BU Rob13 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea. For some reason I'll never understand, there are hundreds of thousands of editors who never do anything on Wikipedia other than use their userspace as a bizarre kind of webhost. Some of these users appear to be socks, and some don't. Sro23 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Malformed Sockpuppet report?

How was this a malformed sockpuppet report? Nate using his "patented" personal assaults even on the Sockpuppet_investigations/Nate_Speed page multiple time in edit summaries and on the page. Spshu (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Malformed as in, for some reason there was no case status, and it was also unsigned. Sometimes I find it's easier to just remove a malformed report entirely rather than try to fix it. In this case, everything had been taken care of (all proxies have been blocked and the page already semi'd). If you need help filing an SPI, please ask me, because I know it can be confusing at times. Follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations under "How to open an investigation", or you can enable WP:TWINKLE which creates reports automatically for you.

Also @Spshu: when you come across Nate Speed socks, I recommend first notifying WP:RFPP or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, where you will most likely get a much faster response. Sometimes SPI can be very slow unfortunately. Sro23 (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

QF

You were right all along, even if it may be a different sock farm. May I worship you? Alex Shih^Talk 02:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel a little better knowing he's blocked, his socks have been harassing me and others since last year. There is still one unblocked sock though (Timothy IX). I emailed a CU about it weeks ago but never got a response. Sro23 (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind showing me the connection? I can't seem to find it. Alex Shih^Talk 03:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not something I want to reveal per WP:BEANS. I'm just not going to worry about it anymore. Sro23 (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cada mori

Hello, I'd like to know the outcome of this. I am in no way related to this account and I would like to keep making edits but everything keeps getting reverted because I am under investigation? It says on the page you are on charge of this investigation but you haven't made updates in over a month. Thanks. LebronJamesGOAT (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, it probably will help to read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims. So if you aren't a sockpuppet, you can relax. I'm sorry your edits were reverted, we are not supposed to make reverts unless the user is an obvious sock or has already been blocked. I would take it easy and continue to edit as normal. Sro23 (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi mate, you just reverted another of my edits, I thought you said I could go back to editing? LebronJamesGOAT (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I know. I'm sorry about that, it was a misclick and unintentional. Sro23 (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

No harm done, thanks for clarifying. LebronJamesGOAT (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry query

Do you know of any sockmasters known for editing articles about movies and adjusting information (possibly falsely) related to critical reception (especially Rotten Tomatoes)? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this? Sro23 (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'll send you a list of potentially connected accounts via email so you can take a look. I'm really bewildered by this potential ring. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BoBobooty may be of interest to you. Sro23 (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal section

I actually started the discussion on removing the section (see talk page). The majority seems to clearly favor the latter. If you would take a look and revert the revert that be cool.

Thanks and Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

SPI page move request

I saw your page move request, but then noticed that you replaced the source page with a redirect to the target - do you still need me to move this page? I'll need to delete the target page to make way for this move... are you okay with this? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you managed to manually fix it. Also, I noticed a leading space at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ WareMiekal and have moved the page to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WareMiekal for you. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah...that's what I originally wanted before deciding it was unnecessary and changing my mind. Sorry about that. Sro23 (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't be sorry - I just wanted to make sure that you got the assistance you needed :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Sro23. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is TAWT.
Message added 15:59, 28 October 2017 (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 15:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Since he's clearly already aware what the tell is, no point in keeping it a secret. I hope you don't mind I responded on the SPI. Sro23 (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Congratulations for learning Bulgarian, btw. GAB^gab 16:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hello. How can I know who is the master of this sock [2]. The account has been tagged as a sockpuppet but it is not clear whose sock is this. I have noticed an user who is very similar to this banned sock but to file a SPI case, i should know the master of that account . Could you please help me? Thanks. --172.248.171.148 (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Sro23:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Linguist^unEins^uno 20:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Princess Johanna of Hesse and by Rhine

I think the IP vandal is definitely a sock of a long term user. They are too familiar with WP policies. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cebr1979. Sro23 (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

For your information Operator873^CONNECT 02:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marios2134454

Mind taking a look at that one when you have a chance? You've handled a few related reports before, so I think you're probably the clerk most familiar with the behavior. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

meta:Requests for comment/Global ban of INeverCry 2

There is currently an discussions about INC issues, I think you maybe invited for the comment. SA 13 Bro (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent SPI

A couple questions. I had initially submitted it, and it looked like a mess; I suspect you or someone else cleaned it up. What, if anything was wrong with the formating, or is the template only "activated" later?

Next, am I supposed to notify the subject of the SPI? Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, i see this dif which kinda explains it. Again, Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What happened was the {{User}} template was missing some brackets. Also, it's not a requirement to notify editors about SPI's, but considering C. W. Gilmore has been a member of the community for years, it would probably be the nice thing to do. Sro23 (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the autopsy. I've left a note for Gilmore on his talk page with a link to the filing. Anmccaff (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Revert

Hello. You undid my edit to Quiet please!, without explaining why. The manual of style says that plot sections for feature films should be 400-700 words (WP:FILMPLOT). This is a cartoon with a running time of 7 and a half minutes. My edit reduced the plot section from 820 to 350 words, and it seems clear that if anything, more should be removed. If you disagree and think it needs to be longer, maybe you can explain why. Rbka (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So, it seems like you reverted my edit because you think I'm someone else [3]. Try talking to me directly rather than whatever underhand moves you're trying to pull here. If your intent is to improve articles, you'll find it works better. Rbka (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You're a banned editor. I have no obligation to talk to you. You shouldn't be editing at all. Sro23 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm certainly not. Your behaviour is rather bizarre, I must say. Are you here to create high quality articles, or for some other purpose? Rbka (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It's quite obvious, and now there is no doubt in my mind. You are this banned editor. Sro23 (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Some other purpose, then. Rbka (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop editing, I am only typing back the facts as I am the photographer and manager. Would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolfhogseth (talk • contribs) 06:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Everton FC investigation

I am going through each Everton player's articles carefully and see what the timestamps are - already found one on Kevin Mirallas edited by the possible sock of Efc1878. Iggy (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I have posted on the investigation and found the full list of similar diffs which the possible sock has made. Iggy (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Kipperfield

Hey there, I don't know how your SPI clerk training is proceeding with Bbb23 on an extended break, but as far as I'm concerned as long as you're listed as active on the clerks page, it would be fine for you to self-endorse your own checkuser requests. Presumably as a clerk you have a good reason for making the request in the first place (though you still need to explain), and it's still up to the checkuser to decide to run the check or not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware I can do that. Sro23 (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

An article you have been editing is under discretionary sanctions.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. The article in question is New York City mayoral election, 2017.

Do you by any chance recognize this account?

Sorry to bother you, but this user's user page popped up in my feed: Vexilloguy. Seeing you've been dealing with socks and I figured you might be able to recognize some behaviors. Their edits on other wikis are at Commons and ruwiki so far, you can check the CentralAuth. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 16:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't recognize them. If you think the user's behaving suspiciously, keep an eye on them. In my experience socks will eventually mess up, get lazy and reveal themselves. Old habits die hard. Sro23 (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

118 alex sock accounts tagged by IP

Can anyone look into this? Someone's tagging sock tags on accounts made by 118 alex, and whilst user talk pages may not be deleted per policy, I think this reeks of violating WP:DENY since it brings undue attention to the troll. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

That IP is definitely 118 alex, no one cares about tagging those socks except for, well, 118 alex. This autoblock which originated from one of the socks only proves it further. Sockmasters like this one who seemingly exist only to tag their own puppets have to be the most obnoxious type of sock there is. Would definitely support a long-term block since IP appears to be static and mass deletion of those socktags. Sro23 (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Would that be grounds for an MFD or a mass purge considering they were made by a banned, attention-seeking sockmaster? Blake Gripling (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

clarification please

Does this edit indicate you performed a checkuser at that SPI?

If so, could you clarify the CU findings?

Am I correct that you were indicating that the checkuser tools did not point at any other named wiki-IDs using the IP addresses that were listed, when you performed the CU? You didn't say whether he CU confirmed that the named wiki-ID uswas makingunderlying use of IP addresses I listed?

Do the checkuser tools tell you whether a named wiki-ID is close to an IP? If so, are you allowed to say so?

Do the checkuser tools tell you whether a four component IP address maps to near a six component IP address?

Note: I added three more closely related IP addresses since you made your change.

Note: I found another SPI that named more IP addresses in the range 2605:8D80...

Are there conditions when it would be appropriate to block all IPs in the range 2605:8D80?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't me, I am not a CU, that was Berean Hunter. From what it looks like, he confirmed that Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b has not been socking with other accounts. Per the privacy policy CheckUsers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address, so whether those IP's are indeed socks or not will need to be determined by behavioral evidence. Sro23 (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Geo Swan, you have the spelling slightly off on an account that you indicate in the SPI. Based on publicly available data at the bottom of this LTA page, I presume that you are looking at this SPI case. Behavior suggests that this is likely. Sro23, if you agree would you please move the case?

Many of the questions above I cannot answer owing to the privacy policies and the checkuser policy. I can say that when I checked, I saw no other accounts. Concerning your question about mapping IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, you will find a "Geolocate" link at the bottom of an IP's contribs page which will give you information with varying degrees of accuracy. The CU tool itself does not provide geolocation. Blocking a range that large is possible under the right conditions but not common. Ranges should always be evaluated for collateral damage and one that large may well have some. Placing IP information into SPI reports is a good thing as it helps those looking at the case but checkusers won't answer questions about them. Often the necessary blocks will be made but there will be no comment about it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarifications! Thanks for taking a look at the updated SPI. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Grammar Warz

Hey, Sro! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:440:9936:95DA:902A:442:550C (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sro, I hope you don't mind me tidying. This was at the top. IP, (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you have no control over your dynamic address) I don't knwo where you got this "real people only" for the usage of who. I've never heard of it, and I didn't see anything about it when I just did a google search. I also don't why you have such a crusade against Sro when (as I pointed out 10 minutes ago on of your thousand talk pages) s/he hadn't edited the page in over 6 months, while you perpetuated your cause against about a dozen people over, wowzy, for 2 years. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW, prove that Roseanne Roseannadanna isn't real. English doesn't care about the tactile existence of nouns. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

SPI Clerk

After consulting with other CheckUsers, I'm pleased to let you know that you've been promoted to full SPI clerk. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Way to go Sro :-) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Congrats Sro! Well deserved. Thanks for all your work here at the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 20:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• I supported your promotion during my absence. Well-deserved. If I'd been around, I would have promoted you sooner. BTW, I know you're not one for social niceties (it's always refreshing to know someone who appears to be worse at it than I am), but an acknowledgment of the comments here wouldn't be amiss. .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sro23. You have new messages at Talk:Randolph family of Virginia.
Message added 23:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Can I be a foster-mum?

I've already taken a shin to it... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft

Please see my response to your edit. Your reasoning is poor and you need to rethink or else hand over to someone who appreciates the problems that this individual causes. This is no ordinary "sockmaster" – he is subject to sitewide WP:BAN. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Mr Justice Kenneth Parker

Hello. You changed his title from the (correct) "Kenneth Parker", to the (definitely incorrect) "Parker". He was never Mr Justice Parker. Please don't rv it without justifying - which you won't be able to do, because it's wrong. Regards Ironman1104 (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for making that revert, this is what I actually intended to do. Sro23 (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Thx. Ironman1104 (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sro23. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the fast and very protective revert of that insult posted on my talk page. LOL, I've spent most of my grownup life working with mentally ill and HIV affected individuals. So I've been called worse things than a Dumb ***** in a regular day on the job. Beauty School Dropout (talk)

It's a good thing you have a thick skin. RC patrollers have to put up with so much abuse. Sad but true. Sro23 (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I realize now that the years I spent on that job were a total gift to me. Now I call it my bootcamp experience, because I learned how to stay totally calm even when the house was on fire. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Modernrocker4

Hi, Sro. I have a question! Why do you think the ip range 116.206.139.0/22 is not a sock? Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

David Samadi socking

About this. That article has been long-term disrupted by blatantly promotional editing. We have extremely clear socking going on at minimum with Mbc2017 and Evonomix. This person just keeps creating new accounts, attacking the article, then going away, and coming back with a new account and lying about it with no consequences. This is "Creating new accounts to avoid detection". It does matter - it means we are telling this person "no", and it means we can block them the next time they try (and they will surely try again). Please revert and block those two, at least. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of blocks is to prevent active disruption, so I don't really see the point in blocking inactive/abandoned accounts. I know the report was good when you first filed it, and it's not your fault SPI is so slow, but none of the accounts are currently active. Please keep an eye on the article and refile another SPI if you see a new sock appear, or one of the accounts you first reported re-activates. Hopefully the SPI will receive attention more promptly next time. Sro23 (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Your choice to not act here right next to your suggesting that i should "please keep watching" is infuriating. You cannot see the point of blocking? Well i don't see the point in even trying to protect that article anymore. So that is where we are. Jytdog (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Thank you for everything you do to protect the encyclopedia. Sro23 (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

IPSock

69.113.202.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'm pretty sure I recognize this IP's edit summaries, but I can't quite come up with the name of the blocked sockmaster/LTA. Jared something or other? Do you recognize him? General Ization ^Talk 01:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, yes I've seen this LTA before, but I can't think of a name. There might not be one. Sro23 (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Found him: Jaredgk2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). General Ization ^Talk 01:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That IP definitely isn't Jaredgk2008. Two different LTA's. Sro23 (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Alas, no; don't see similar edit summaries on that master's socks. Nevermind. General Ization ^Talk 01:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

One to watch

Interesting username: Sro2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). General Ization ^Talk 01:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You messaged me

Hi. No it's not my first account. This is the only account I use now (you can user checkuser). I previously used multiple accounts and the sole reason I did so was because I didn't want to use one account to edit a multitude of articles as previously I did violate multiple accounts for a very silly reason to manufacture a consensus in disputes. El Clasico page one example between warring Madrid and Barcelona fans. I haven't done that since, so for example the last few times i would create an account just to make an edit in one article, and that would be it. All done just to avoid detection as I had seen users being banned for editing in similar articles as before. The difference in my case I've never partook in any vandalism (I'm not abominable wiki troll, I've seen the comments. The only topic I think I edited on that was similar was Gary Oldman). I served a months ban..prior to 28 November 2017 I last edited as RBrewster in the Daphne Du Maurier article on 16:19, 28 October 2017‎ RBrewster. After the month expired I created this account and that's it. In terms of other names previously, User:BEeves was one. I edited on Oldman on 26 October, that's two days before the one month ban. So it was edits like that. DC80 (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you User:Chie one? Sro23 (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Thats one of the few that I can actually recall using as I used it a lot. The vast majority will have been roughly a dozen edits, maybe less. DC80 (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!

Hello, Sro23! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Happy Holidays!

Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, 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 cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 19:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Sro23: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —MRD2014 ^{Merry Christmas!} 01:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Sro23, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, 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 greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, —MBL Talk 06:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas 2017!

Merry Christmas

This user wishes you a very Merry Christmas.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

113.29.230.*

Who's the master? I've been trying to find a block but can't. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It's User:The abominable Wiki troll. Please try rangeblocking, although he'll soon find a new one. Sro23 (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Added a rangeblock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: he's also been using 5.64.41.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) since early December. Sro23 (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018. —Donner60 (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2018!

Happy New Year!

Sro23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Might be a good idea to semi AN/I for a while

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Oops, NeilN did it. Beyond My Ken (talk)

FYI

Thanks for keeping an eye on my talkpage. You may want to compare [4] to [5]. I see a familiar pattern. IF so, there will be more. Montanabw^(talk) 18:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, there's been more. Any chance of requesting a rangeblock? (see here, plus my talkpage history, four blocked vandal hits in the last week or so). I'm particularly troubled that they are now attempting to spoof my username (which is often abbreviated as MTBW). Not sure if a post at WP:SPI is the way to go or if those of you who have been tracking this case are better suited to look into it. I'd personally like to WP:DENY if possible, but... Montanabw^(talk) 19:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Montanabw I've requested for a rangeblock. Sro23 (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. They are also hitting me on other wikis, so annoying. Montanabw^(talk) 21:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you think?

Happy 2018 S. Does this look like it might be a sock of this. The TS article has had a lot of silliness over the years so it could just be a one off. I'm about to log off so I wont be able to get to a SPI until tomorrow. Thanks for your time and expertise. MarnetteD|Talk 05:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely Jaredgk2008. Summoning Zzuuzz. Sro23 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Aye. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Haven't had my morning coffee yet but I do want to thank you both for looking into this. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: there's also HighSparrowsRighthandman. Sro23 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. I'm beginning to think that certain ISPs need to be blacklisted from editing Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

CSA

I am a national board member of the CSA (Casting Society of America) and had adequate sources and authority to update the history of the organization and the Artios Awards. Why were my edits removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdjcasting (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cdjcasting:, your edits were directly copied from http://www.castingsociety.com/awards/artios, and it wasn't clear the copyright holder can given permission for that. If you own the copyright, I refer you to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. Sro23 (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

On Hold

I have been obseving the SPI backlog and thought I might try to do some useful admin patrolling but some of the procedures seem a little arcane. I am not in any way offering a critique here - simply looking for some explanation. Can you tell me why Tamara787 is 'on hold' when the last edit in this section was on 27th October? Also, when I 'closed' this section I expected it to go onto the 'Closed' listing at WP:SPI but instead the system seemed to think the case was waiting on a CU, which does not seem to be the case. Any advice gratefully received. Ben MacDui 11:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ben MacDui, thanks for patrolling SPI, it's greatly appreciated. So the reason Tamara787 is on hold is we are still waiting on a clerk to merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peterpansshadow and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuperPassword into that SPI. Sorry for the confusion. Sro23 (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Reykjavíkurdætur

Have you ever seen anything like Reykjavíkurdætur? It's an obscure article where new editors regularly show up to perform copy edits. I've been watching it for a week or two now, and I'm not sure what to make of it. Some of the editors who show up there also edit other obscure articles (like Nikolai Ge), and the same thing happens on those articles. It's like these articles are catnip to new editors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the articles were tagged with {{Copy edit}}. The only other explanation I can think of is maybe some sort of class project, but I doubt it. Sro23 (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, could be a class or something like that. It's not like they're doing anything disruptive – it just strikes me as a bit odd. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome! I'll ping you if I have any questions. Alacrity25 (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sro23

"In November 2017, Li performed at the 2017 League of Legends eSport Championship.[15]" I delete this because I think this show is quite normal to Yundi Li and is not worth recording in the Wikipedia of a classical pianist. He also performed the piano in Victoria's Secret last year, but I think he is a classical pianist so he does not need to add too much cross-section to his wiki. What do you think? Mumu1982 (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Mumu1982

@Mumu1982: The main reason I reverted your change is you deleted sourced information and replaced it with unsourced claims. Please back up your claims with references; this is especially important on biographies. Sro23 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I see, thank you!Mumu1982 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Mumu1982

dear Sro23, League of legends was a commercial performance, however, in this “performing and recording career” column, it focuses on Yundi’s classical concerts, recitals, albums, etc. If you want to add this one, maybe you can create another category, such as “other performance”?Mumu1982 (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Mumu1982

ygm

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.

TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Read. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sro23

League of legends was a commercial performance, however, in this “performing and recording career” column, it focuses on Yundi’s classical concerts, recitals, albums, etc. If you want to add this one, maybe you can create another category, such as “other performance”?Mumu1982 (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why exactly can't we include commercial performances in the same section? Sro23 (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

After all, Yundi is a classical pianist, so I think maybe more people will prefer to focus on his classical concerts rather than his commercial events. Maybe we can add another category as other performance, so people interested in his other events can read in that category.Mumu1982 (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

A request for fish

No trout right now but I do have some nice Arctic char. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

File:.Savoie Omble chevalier et Roussette de Monthoux.jpg

You can tell this is good because it has a fancy French name

Talk:Psychology of art IP

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible IP socks of globally locked and blocked User:Relpmek, now at ANI Heiro 22:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Just an FYI

Thought it might interest you that in some places you are considered worse than Hilter. Mind you, there are some who probably think I'm as bad as Stanley. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 07:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

SPI case

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TRUEV140 - I didn't knew that. But wouldn't that be possible if you do it vice versa. I mean if you perform it on the sockmaster (or the last known sock). Just curious. --Let There Be Sunshine 06:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Both the sockmaster and the last known sock (5ana1234 to the best of my knowledge) are stale. Sro23 (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, I am 100% sure it's the same person. Shows all traits associated with the former and is in the same IP range. --Let There Be Sunshine 06:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The link is WP:CBAN for ZestyLemonz. --Yamla (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on sockpuppetry

Hi, just wonder if I can pick your brains for a second. Everyone has said your clerking work at SPI is brilliant, and I have no reason to dispute this. As you may know, I have an essay, User:Ritchie333/SPI considered harmful that straight away says two really important reasons why SPI exists, and I'm absolutely serious when I say I would not touch things like the OrangeMoody case with a bargepole and take my hat off to those that do.

The principal problems I see are the following:

• Any use of two more accounts is met with an immediate indefinite block. No warnings, no second chances, no Mr Nice Guy. The only other block that works like that is "no legal threats" - any other out-of-the-blue indef blocks get the admin dragged to ANI to be tarred and feathered.
• As a CU block, if the block is overturned, the admin responsible is desysopped. I've had a couple of (non-indefinite) blocks unilaterally overturned because other admins know I am amenable to having my actions reverted in good faith. So why the double standards?
• Anyone with a technical knowledge of HTTP and what network traffic gets sent to and from a browser can work out what the CU logs contain - the privacy policy mandates clarity with what data is stored, and it is illegal in some countries to store cookies without telling the user you are going to so. Claiming CU is "magic pixie dust" is just misleading.
• The odds of appeal are low - admins tend to protect their own, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to read the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment to understand that it is human nature to do this and it will happen naturally. In the case of DrStrauss and SwisterTwister, I don't think it would have been at all harmful to explain exactly what the policy violations were so they can be reviewed later, in exactly the same manner as lesser blocks invite discussion on the blockee's talk page. I also think, given the large number of positive contributions from both accounts, that there was merit for giving them both a slap on the wrist and saying "don't do it again". We often see instances of "content creators" pulled up to ANI for violating WP:NPA / WP:CIVIL that frequently end in a lot of shouting and no action. Imagine if we ran our civility policy like the SPI one! I'd probably be blocked.
• An indefinite block for having two accounts is a weak rationale for kicking somebody off the project. Indeed, I have publicly declared to editing as 195.194.187.132 (talk · contribs) some of the time, and only managed to get a two year block overturned because I'm an admin and have been around the block a few times. A new user would have no chance.
• I am concerned that I share an internet connection at home with my kids. None of them are interested in Wikipedia now, but supposing one of them does take an interest and starts acting like a typical teenager would on WP, being completely out of their depth and potentially blocked for disruption. A CU would match to me and I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. That worries me that I'm running a risk of being kicked off the project with no defence simply by being a dad.

Anyway, I know there's a lot to digest there, but just wondered what you made of all of that. If you disagree, great, I'd love to hear your side of the story and maybe I can understand people a bit more. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hey Ritchie, I hope it's ok if I add my input to some of these points, they're good ones and deserve some discussion. Quickly (and as in order as I can manage):

• This is a mischaracterization. Any illegitimate use of more than one account can be treated with a block, and most often is when it's clear the user intended to violate the policy. But people also violate this policy by accident or cluelessly, and we do try to treat this with advice rather than blocks. At least I do. There's also many users who have multiple accounts for entirely valid reasons, including myself.
• I don't understand what you mean here - if an admin overturns a CU block without checking with the CU it is grounds for desysopping, because private data is involved and admins cannot make those calls. It's on the same level as adminning against an Arbcom directive. But CU blocks are appealable just like any other block, you just have to consult with the CU, again because of private data. I've personally only had a CU object to an unblock request once, when (I assume - private data) the technical data showed that the user was dishonest in their unblock request.
• Yuup. We don't claim CU is magic pixie dust, that's why we have {{pixiedust}} (and {{fishing}}, and others). You need to have a good reason to run CU on someone, and something to actually check for, and the reasons for checks being run are stored permanently in a separate private log from the CU data logs (which rotate after 90 days).
• Yuuuup. I'm not familiar with the cases you mentioned but my terse understanding is there was long-term disruption occurring as well, akin to WP:GHBH.
• Yuuup. But it's rare for someone to be blocked indefinitely for a first occurrence of sockpuppetry, unless it's part of a much larger pattern of disruption. As for experienced users being able to play the game better, well, that's sprotsball for you. (I don't have any insight into this, and definitely no solutions).
• This is a valid concern, unfortunately. I can only give assurances that if such a thing were to happen, CU data is not (should not) be the only evidence taken into account in an investigation: technical data should only be used to supplement a behavioural investigation. Your long tenure of adminning and constructive editing should also be weighed against what might be a few schoolblockworthy edits that would be massively out of character.

Hope this provides some insight. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

(tps) My responses in blue:

• "Any use of two more accounts is met with an immediate indefinite block. No warnings, no second chances, no Mr Nice Guy." -- Not always, we do give warnings sometimes and you aren't seeing the ones that we judge to *not be* socking. You are only seeing the ones that we are.

• "As a CU block, if the block is overturned, the admin responsible is desysopped." -- No non-CU admin could make a well-informed decision since they wouldn't have all the facts and couldn't have because of the privacy policies. To overturn one would be reckless.

• "...to store cookies without telling the user you are going to so. Claiming CU is "magic pixie dust" is just misleading." -- Just the opposite, we tell folks  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. On the second point, the CU tool does not operate off of cookies. Cookie blocks are unrelated. The values stored and presented to checkusers are values presented by the client side of things and stored in the database...not cookies.

• "In the case of DrStrauss and SwisterTwister, I don't think it would have been at all harmful to explain exactly what the policy violations were so they can be reviewed later, in exactly the same manner as lesser blocks invite discussion on the blockee's talk page. I also think, given the large number of positive contributions from both accounts, that there was merit for giving them both a slap on the wrist and saying "don't do it again"." -- Do you understand that Dr. Strauss was asked to come clean but refused to do so. Do you understand what he was trying to do with the Reviewer65 account? He wanted to promote his own work for GA/FA purposes precisely because Dr. Strauss had received criticism in his ORCP about lacking content creation and because of it, would fail RfA. We were looking for him to own his accounts and he wouldn't at that time.

• "A CU would match to me and I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. That worries me that I'm running a risk of being kicked off the project with no defence simply by being a dad." -- CUs that identify an admin that they believe to be socking should send their evidence to the Arbitration Committee. I would first post to the CU mailing list for more opinions/discussion before I ever bothered to send to ArbCom. Arb would decide about any blocking. If I saw someone cutting up on your network, I would block the accounts responsible in order to stop them. The only way that I would ever block your account under any kind of scenario like this would be if it looked like your account was compromised and being used to disrupt. There are procedures for getting your account back (unblocked) after it has been compromised. (Don't let Little Ritchie gain access.;)
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've always thought that the relative ease of creating multiple accounts is almost a way to encourage people to abuse multiple accounts. Personally CheckUser shouldn't need to take place that much if accounts were more difficult to create (the very minimum, unique e-mail address should be required). But then that's apparently against the open nature of Wikipedia. Alex Shih (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Very late reply. I got sidetracked. Well, maybe I'm being humble, but I wouldn't say my clerking is brilliant. I think I just have more interest and spend more time working in SPI areas than the average user.

• This is simply not true. Block lengths (if blocks are deemed necessary) for sockpuppetry will vary depending on the situation. If a vandal creates a sock for the purposes of further vandalism, then yes, block both accounts indefinitely. If the abuse wasn't anything egregious, first time offenders will often be blocked only temporarily. It goes something like this: 3 day block for the first sockpuppetry offense, 1 week block for the next offense, then 2 weeks, 1 month, six months, then indefinite.
• Because CU blocks involve private data not everyone has access to. To blindly overturn them would be irresponsible.
• See {{pixiedust}}.
• From what I can gather, SwisterTwister had been deceiving the community for years, so it's not like the socking was a one-time thing. DrStrauss had been presented with irrefutable evidence of his socking and yet he still denied it. It's so incredibly frustrating when sockmasters do that.
• See my response to your first point. It completely depends on the situation.
• You really shouldn't worry. I mean, there have to be plenty of other admins/veteran editors who share IP addresses or even devices with vandals or disruptive family members/roommates. As long as your kids don't edit in the exact same areas of interest as you using your exact same editing style, you should be fine. Sro23 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)