User talk:Srodgers1701

Sockpuppet investigation
— Bilorv ( talk ) 14:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/LicentiaA. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ways to improve Brandy Zadrozny
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. 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
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sarah Everard CCTV 3 March 2021.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the 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
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 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)


 * 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
Leaning decline, but won't oppose. -- Deep fried okra ( 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. -- Deep fried okra ( 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@undefinedwikimedia.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. -- Deep fried okra  ( 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
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)

Orphaned non-free image File:TomFordBrandLogo.png
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)