User talk:Sro23

How do I request a CheckUser for a suspected sockpuppet?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

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

You've got mail!

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

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

You've got mail

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

Night Beats

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

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

It's normal?

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

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

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

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

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

LeShun Daniels

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

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

Another possible McAusten sock

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

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

More incoming it seems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gill_Lagrutta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mel_Marazita Proabable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Onmipresence

Assistance please

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

A kitten for you!

Thank you for blocking that persistent vandal! :)

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

Troll

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

I feel threatened by that IP

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

latest sock of user:174.88.79.79 and user:70.52.227.174

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

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

Sockpuppet

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

ArbCom 2019 special circular

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

View additional information

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

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

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

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83

User:Beyard508

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

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

Happy First Edit Day!

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

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

Two glints of gold in a pile of coal

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

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

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

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

Question about changing a redirect target

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Likely sock of an IP you blocked?

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

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

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

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

Article unlocked, IPv6 editor repeating same unexplained edits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've got mail

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

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

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

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

I am going to disagree

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone you block

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

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

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

Request....

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

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

List of music considered the worst.

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