This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:DoRD.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.

I see you have semi-protectedUser talk:Tyw7 for 12 hours. All the recent vandalism came from one IP range (182.1.0.0/16) which I have blocked, so the protection may serve no purpose. Since user talk page protection always runs some (even if little) risk of collateral damage, would you consider lifting the protection? Obviously, if the vandal then jumps to a new IP range then the protection can be restored.The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)12:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

PSUser talk:L293D was protected too. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Pleaseping me if you had replied12:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Yeah, I didn't notice the rangeblock until after I placed the semi, so I've unprotected both pages. —DoRD (talk)​14:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If I had thought of it when I left my message above I would have made some (perhaps rather weak) attempt a being witty with some remark about the range block making the page protection redundant. Missed the chance, though.The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)14:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, that didn't work out. C'est la vie. —DoRD (talk)​12:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you take care ofthis? I've already rev-delled and blocked the IP for a week.Abecedare (talk)21:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.Abecedare (talk)21:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I also converted it to an OS block. Thanks for the heads up. —DoRD (talk)​21:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

You read my mind. I had intentionally been vague in my block and revdel reasons, which could have been confusing if left that way too long. Cheers.Abecedare (talk)21:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi DoRD. Since you recently made a checkuser block of this account, do you want to comment atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User-4488? Since my sage comment in the SPI that no evidence was provided, evidence has begun to rain down from the sky. Thanks,EdJohnston (talk)17:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi,EdJohnston. I was called out of town shortly after blocking and tagging the account, so I'll head over to the SPI (which I wasn't aware of at the time) to leave a comment. Thanks —DoRD (talk)​22:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello DoRD, I was contacted byBarbara.steinberg (talk ·contribs ·SUL ·current rights ·rights log ·block log ·checkuser (log) ·review permissions) who is unable to edit now, even when logged in. Because her Username is not blocked, could you give her an exemption from your hard block of this IP? JGHowes ^talk13:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@JGHowes: Please don't publicly post the IP address of users without their permission - I had to suppress some revisions of my talk page just now. As for the block, the IP address was used by a now prolific sockmaster, and since the connection seems to be somewhat static, I'm going to need forBarbara.steinberg to either a) make an edit to their talk page, or b) submit their request throughUTRS. Thanks —DoRD (talk)​15:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

oops, sorry. Have so informed her. JGHowes ^talk15:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, she's now able to at least edit her Usertalk page and has placed an{{Unblock}} requestthere. JGHowes ^talk19:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@JGHowes: She should be good to go now. —DoRD (talk)​19:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed youblocked this user last month and somebody has created another account and started publishing thesame edits as the user you blocked. There was another user a few months ago who made the same edits but they wereblocked as well by a different user. (120.144.11.129 (talk)02:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC))

Thanks, the account is now blocked. —DoRD (talk)​16:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the username policy violation. I just wanted to create a robot. Sorry about removal. I just wanted to create a robot.--The Iron Warrior (talk)12:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

HiDoRD! I realize you've been busy lately, but I wanted to message you regarding SPI clerking and see when it would be a convenient time for you so that we can continue the training :-). There's obviously no rush; I just wanted to poke you about it and pick things back up. Just let me know. Cheers -~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}16:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi DoRD. I was quite saddenned to see thesemi-retired banner on your page. Hope you change your mind. Regards,Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk)01:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Just adding my personal +1 that it I've missed you.There'sNoTime doesn't quite have your taste for good alcohol.TonyBallioni (talk)02:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Seethis SPI report. You renewed a block on one of his other ranges recently, inJune 2018. The block on the 221.9.something range (I'm not sure how many bits) recently expired and Jan. is back edit-warring and asserting article ownership attalk:x86. I thought that perhaps since you had handled a Janagewen case before, though with a different IP range, you might be able to help with this one more quickly than the usual SPI response. Thanks either way. :)Jeh (talk)09:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, another admin took care of it. Thanks anyway!Jeh (talk)18:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I want to stress that I am not opposed to your decision in any way; I'm still learning this so I accept your word that it was the correct decision. I did want to say that I'm fairly sure the person making the request was the target of the block. They never out-and-out denied that they were the blocked user(something which I would think most people would naturally do if it were true) instead focusing on the length of the block and the unlikelihood of their being reassigned the same IP.331dot (talk)15:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, 331dot, I agree with your view of the situation, but when I checked the range, none of the other blocks I saw were a match to the current user of the IP address. Even if thatwas the target, a block of a single IP in a dynamic range is ineffective, so with that block length, I decided to unblock. If the user starts exhibiting sock-ish behavior, a targeted rangeblock will probably be the best solution, and I'll be glad to look into it if needed. —DoRD (talk)​15:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the person making the request was the target of the block.

You're wrong.

They never out-and-out denied that they were the blocked user

I did.

This was a trivial case of a clearly ineffective block, clearly contravening the blocking policy. You made a really unnecessary meal of it.82.132.221.10 (talk)16:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

82..10, in light of the massive misuse of anonymous editing seen on this website, I can't fault 331dot for his cautious approach to the situation. You're free to create an account to avoid IP blocks, provided you're not forbidden to, of course. —DoRD (talk)​16:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to take up DoRD's page arguing over this. I support their decision, but I stand by my views. Whomever you are, I hope that you edit productively. I don't have anything else to add here.331dot (talk)16:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi.

The Indonesian IP who removes the category "Political and cultural purges"[1] is back. In the last day or so, they've used (at least):

• 111.94.203.99
• 111.94.22.197
• 118.137.36.92
• 118.137.37.117
• 118.137.113.47

Any chance of range blocks?

Beyond My Ken (talk)05:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, sorry for the delay in responding - I've had a busy day today and just didn't get around to this. I will, though, get back to you early tomorrow. —DoRD (talk)​04:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.Beyond My Ken (talk)11:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: The 5 IPs boil down to 4 /19 ranges, but it looks like the vandal hasn't edited from any of them in a couple of days, and given how dynamic that ISP's ranges are, the horse is long gone from the barn at this point. Ithink that the best solution might be an edit filter. I'll revisit the ANI discussion and put together a request later today or early tomorrow. Cheers —DoRD (talk)​14:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:Filter requested because I have no idea how to make one myself, but it shouldn't be terribly difficult for someone who knows how. —DoRD (talk)​13:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

<sigh> Well, I didn't notice that you had already been there. I'll see about merging some of my comments into the earlier report. —DoRD (talk)​13:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi DoRD, I was writing a comment on the SPI page, about Seraphim System, but the case was closed before I could publish it. So for whatever it's worth, I thought I'd mention it here... I'm very surprised about this! I've had some interactions withShofet tsaddiq in the past week or so. There are some obvious signs that they're the same person asBrooklynStateOfMind and some of the other socks, for example, not leaving a space before their signature, the similarity of their remarks in response to the block message, and several other things. But with Seraphim System, they seem like a very different person. It would mean that Seraphim System was purposely making mistakes in English - and consistently - to give the impression of being a non-native level speaker. And pretending, quite convincingly, to be a newbie and not know about certain basic things about Wikipedia. Like not making new sections on talk pages, and seeming to honestly not understand what a 3RR warning is about (seeUser talk:IamNotU § New Post), and a lot of other things. I mean, we're talking about a high level of deception here, playing a fake character, while interacting with people who knew her before, and for what? To add a bunch of junk and OR content about Israel to theShawarma article, with low-quality sources, as Shofet tsaddiq has? Many of the socks' edits were focussed on Jewish topics, but I don't see that Seraphim System was ever interested in that before. And they just didn't seem like the kind of edits that Seraphim System would make... it doesn't make much sense to me. I guess you must be pretty sure about it. I suppose I don't really have a point other than "I don't get it", and feeling like a fool for trying to help out this "new editor" who seemed to show some promise but needed to learn the ropes, if all the while it was Seraphim System. I thought I had a pretty good eye for detecting sock puppets. Surprising, and disappointing... Anyway, thanks for your efforts, it must have been a difficult case. --IamNotU (talk)23:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello,IamNotU, and thanks for the message. This was an unfortunate case. It initially looked like a simple open-and-shut case of sockpuppetry, albeit one with a large number of sockpuppets, but then Seraphim System turned up in the checkuser results. I was hoping to find something that I could use to eliminate the possibility that they were the owner of all of the other accounts, but at every turn, the evidence against them got stronger. I've been doing this a long time, and even I was surprised by the level of deception I saw. Frankly, I don't get it, either. They could have waited for their self-requested block to expire, or they even could have asked for it to be lifted, but for whatever reason, they apparently felt the need to make a surreptitious return. It disturbs me to find a seemingly productive editor like this, and I hope that they can put this behind them and return to editing someday. —DoRD (talk)​01:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Please give me a couple of minutes to sort this out thank youOrbitalEnd48401 (talk)13:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@OrbitalEnd48401: That's fine, but do not use the images here until you have it sorted on Commons. —DoRD (talk)​13:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I will reportDiannaa andReaper Eternal for sabotaging my work onLindha Kallerdahl andOlli Soikkeli, and for accusing me of close paraphrasing and plagiarism without leaving me any chance to defend myself, and if necessary the opportunity to correct the problem. I will also reportDoRD for sanctioning me without leaving me a chance to meet the attacks on my work. I appreciate criticism of my work, if I get the chance to meet the criticism. I am afraid there is a huge democratic problem on Wikipedia that ought to be handeled.Knuand (talk)14:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Knuand, please feel free to report me atWP:ANI if you must. —DoRD (talk)​14:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I don't think you completed your move.--Bbb23 (talk)15:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't look like he needs tonow.
 — Berean Hunter(talk)15:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

That took care of part of it, but Serial Number's Talk page reply was omitted when the OP posted himself, so I copied that in myself with a note. In addition to other problems, there is a significant amount of incompetence demonstrated by this user. A bit surprising given the experience level. AN's not even the right place for this. As DoRD said above, any complaint should have been posted at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk)15:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

<sigh> I was in a rush. Ithought that I clicked the save button, but I guess not. Thanks for letting me know. —DoRD (talk)​17:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello DoRD,I saw that you commented on Elockid’s talk page that that administrator has not been active in a couple of years. This comes as odd to me as I am getting a message on my computer saying that this administrator has blocked me from editing until November 2020 because I am a suspected web host provider. I honestly don’t even know what that means, but I am certain I am not such a thing. I was given the message to post a message on my talk page to refute the claim, but Elockid’s block has made that impossible to do on my computer. As an administrator, would you be able to remove the block on my IP address? My IP is 173.244.192.0/19. I am only able to post on here using the data on my iPhone. If you could do this, I would truly appreciate it. Thanks!Count Awesome (talk)03:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I won't be able to address this for at least a few hours, but one of my talk page watchers might chime in. —DoRD (talk)​04:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Count Awesome, 173.244.192.0/19 appears to belong to aweb hosting service. Are you perhaps using aVPN on your computer? If so, you may need to disable it to edit Wikipedia. —DoRD (talk)​13:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I double checked as well, and "Hosting Services Inc." is indeed a web host. It appears to be a vpn server.SQL^{Query me!}21:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!
Best wishes,CAPTAIN RAJU^(T)14:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! —DoRD (talk)​15:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I saw your note. What should I have done? I just posted a similar issue directly to an admin's talk page, which you can see in my contribs (to avoid repeating it). Should I revert it? Thanks.—[AlanM1(talk)]—11:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It's fine to ask for action to be taken based on behavior, but we are not allowed to use theCheckUser tool to reveal the IP addresses associated with a named account, except in very limited circumstances.Also note that Materialscientist, if I understand correctly, has notifications disabled, so your ping in the SPI will go unnoticed. —DoRD (talk)​11:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

OK. So the SPI remains open – it's just the CU that's declined. Just trying to prevent a repeat of the same pattern. Thanks.—[AlanM1(talk)]—12:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I see that you closed my ANI report. While I agree that the threats were not credible, I find it surprising that you were so dismissive of my request--this is clearly an editor who needs an understanding of WP:V, RS, and THREATEN. By closing the report without taking any steps (even just a talk page message), you are simply perpetuating a problem. I am glad that the personal information was suppressed, but how does closing the report without even contacting the editor do anything to prevent future disruption?GaryColemanFan (talk)22:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The other editor divulged far too much personal information on their userpage, and it should have been submitted for suppression rather than being advertised at the most public of public noticeboards. Thankfully, I was able to deal with it in short order. As far as their behavior goes, it seems to me that, rather than the very blunt tool that is ANI, the editor could use some advice and guidance instead. —DoRD (talk)​00:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Guidance from whom? You closed my request to have someone offer some guidance.GaryColemanFan (talk)02:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

As you're undoubtedly aware, ANI rarely leads to anything but sanctions for editors like this. Indeed, ifIridescent had not stepped in, an indef block would have certainly been the result here. I assume that a prolific editor such as yourself might have some advice to offer, but if not, I'm sure that we can come up with something better than simply showing them the door. —DoRD (talk)​12:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

As you already know from reading the report, I asked for someone to help the editor rather than pushing for any form of block or ban. I'm certainly happy to try to explain policies, but when this is met with an inability or unwillingness to understand the policy, it's beyond my pay grade. There doesn't seem to be much point in continuing here, though, as this discussion appears to be following the frequent administrator stance of "I see that you're pointing out an easy solution, but I feel that anyone questioning my decision is a threat to my authority, so I'm going to dig in my heels, defend my decision endlessly, and threaten to block you if you don't walk away." So it goes.GaryColemanFan (talk)15:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Per my comment on the ANI thread, she's entirely correct in her claim that the edit in question ("Bastion Booger unfortunately could not compete due to getting food poisoning before the match") was a close paraphrase from"In 1994, Bastion Booger was drawn 25th, but no-showed due to suffering food poisoning before the match", which has been present and apparently undisputed (albeit still unsourced) onRoyal Rumble match for a year. Yes, it's technically a breach to add unsourced content, but it's a common good-faith mistake for newcomers to think "well, this is present on article A so it's obviously something Wikipedia's happy with, so I'll add something similar to article B". It certainly doesn't constitute an "urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem", and we're not going to put a young child who appears to be trying to help through the unpleasantness of being the recipient of a Hate Week at ANI, especially given that she'dtried to explain her reasoning to you and you hadn't even given her the courtesy of a reply but instead escalated straight to ANI. Yes, she may need to be gently guided away from Wikipedia if she doesn't tone down the overenthusiasm and inappropriate jokes, but that's a matter for another day. (I'll keep an eye on her, and if you haven't scared her off will explain things to her if she runs into further problems.) ‑ Iridescent19:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello,DoRD,

I was just reviewing the unblock requests of Operationendgame and Gristleking and I have a general question regarding CU blocks. I have lived most of my life in shared housing, sharing the same house/apartment, same internet connection with my family or housemates. For me, I never lived with another person who wanted to edit Wikipedia but if I did, would I face a block?

These situations of editors sharing housing seems very plausible to me given that I've lived in similar situations during my life and I'm not sure what reassurances an editor blocked for this reason can make that could lift their block. Or is it just impossible for two active editors to share an internet connection? I know it's okay according to policy but I'm talking about practice. It shouldn't be impossible for 2 editors to live together and both be active on Wikipedia because I know we have couples on Wikipedia who are both long time editors.Liz^Read!Talk!23:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi,Liz. I've seen similar situations to this quite a few times over the years I've been doing this work, and it's always a challenge to determine which is which. I agree that it's plausible that there could be multiple WP editors living together (or next door), but in this case I find it unlikely. According to Gristleking, there are four residents living together, and three of them are WP editors. The two accounts above have some crossover of their editing and Gristleking has quite a bit of crossover with the oldest account, including supporting that account at AfD. The technical data is quite conclusive as well. In addition, I've seen similar quirky behavior shared between the accounts.

Of course, it's perfectly acceptable for multiple editors to use the same internet connection in the same household, but they typically take the precaution of making some note of the shared IP and avoiding editing the same subjects. —DoRD (talk)​01:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation,DoRD. This isn't the first time I've had questions about the checkuser system and checkuser blocks and since I don't know what is technically involved, it seems to come down to trusting the experience and good sense of checkusers to figure out what is going on. I tend to give editors the benefit of the doubt and I have to accept that checkusers have seen every sort of situation and complication and know deception when they see it.

I would just prefer that there is always some sort of way for blocked editors to appeal and start over because without a way to do this can lead to sockpuppetry. But I realize that giving frequent second chances is an approach that might require oversight that requires too much attention and time from a limited pool of admins. Thank you again for your thoughtful response.Liz^Read!Talk!01:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems better to discuss here, than in materialscientist talk page, regarding dhcp and IPv6.I mostly followed instructions from someone else that did it, except to modify for two subnets. The process is calledPrefix_delegation where DHCP requests an appropriate prefix. I suppose multiples of four are convenient, in that they follow the hex digits in the human readable form. Comcast seems interested in getting people to use IPv6, but doesn't explain much about doing it. I use dhcp6c for the IPv6 dhcp client, which does the prefix delegation request. I haven't tested to see if it gets the same prefix if I restart dhcp6c. It is kind of funny to have 2**68 IP addresses for one house.Gah4 (talk)18:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a ridiculous number of addresses for one residential customer, but at least they're unlikely to run out of them. My ISP doesn't seem to care (or, frankly, even know much about) IPv6 - their gateways are even shipped with IPv6 disabled! I've had to manually enable it each time I've had hardware replaced or had to perform a factory reset. —DoRD (talk)​11:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for mistakenly believing that the troll's accounts were sockpuppets of the user I reported to. I knew that something was up when I saw the damage done in the history, but thought that the damagers were of the SPI master. It appears that I was wrong, however.

With that in mind, what are some "warning signs" of trolls like that so that I can avoid getting fooled by them in the future?Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳)23:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Woshiyiweizhongguoren, let me ask you a question: Have you edited Wikipedia with a different account previously? Your account is barely 2.5 weeks old, but you've shown a remarkable interest in areas of the project that new users typically take a long time to find, if they ever do. —DoRD (talk)​00:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been reading many Wikipedia projects and making good edits under IP for quite some time, but it was only about last month when I finally decided to create an account so that all my contributions could be under one name.Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳)00:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi DoRD, since you were the last CU to look into theBothiman socks, would you mind looking at userDweryhj, please? It looks like a throw-away account name, and the previous socks were very active in editing Indian Tamil actorVijay's article. This account has posted edit requests on the article's talk page. The article was extended-confirmed protected because of this guy. If you look at thetalk page history most of the recent posts are from his socks:Tigerpowerlewst,Mitchelaaa,Fgassh,Hjkl12345 etc. It'sprobably him, but he often has multiple accounts open, so I fear I must impose upon you. Thanks much,Cyphoidbomb (talk)02:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

HiCyphoidbomb. I ran a check on the account and confirmed that it indeed a sock of Bothiman, but I didn't see any other obvious matches that weren't already blocked. Given the number of ranges they have access to, though, I don't think we've seen the last of the socks yet. —DoRD (talk)​11:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks kindly.Cyphoidbomb (talk)14:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations, you'refeatured on theMain Page of Wiktionary! --King of♥♦♣ ♠02:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

That's hilarious! Thanks for the heads up! —DoRD (talk)​12:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The handful that I looked athere (like 20+!!) were tagged by an indeffed LTA...someone should probably just delete those userpages.Praxidicae (talk)13:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the tasks I work on occasionally. —DoRD (talk)​13:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm working on a filter for non-admins adding sock tags (and blocked tags) too, it'll have some false positives because of SPI clerks but it'll be a nice...lint filter for socks. ;)Praxidicae (talk)14:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi admin! You blocked "User:PakistaniLahori777" recently, now it looks like there is another account made as "User:LollywoodLover"; making similar edits. Please check, Thanks!M.Billoo20:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@M.Billoo2000: Well, I was away from my computer half the day, and this has been taken care ofhere while I was out. —DoRD (talk)​02:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

	Trophy
	Good job adminAlexCruz289 (talk)16:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind. Thanks for taking care of what I assume to be AGCP.--Bbb23 (talk)20:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping that you would fill in the gaps there, to be honest. And, I don't know the name of that LTA, but he's certainly persistent. —DoRD (talk)​20:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A Great Catholic Person (talk ·contribs ·count).--Bbb23 (talk)20:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, right.So many LTAs, so little remaining memory... —DoRD (talk)​21:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi DoRD, I left you this query on the Ellocreative / Gotallytime user talk page, though then thought it might be more visible to you on your talk page here. My thinking is that it was relatively easy this time to trace their subterfuge accounts back to the consultancy firm, due to the newbie mistakes and carelessness. However what happens next when the firm creates more sock puppet accounts, perhaps one per client, and edits their pages, without declaring conflicts of interest or having any easy trace back to the firm? How can this be detected?

NeutralityEnforcer (talk)08:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

If they return with more accounts, the way to detect them will be through observation, e.g.WP:COI behavior andWP:SIGNS. —DoRD (talk)​11:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm but not through technical means, like matching the IP address block of the prior accounts? That would be the easiest and most straightforward.NeutralityEnforcer (talk)17:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes,school blocks are always wrong. If you actually wanted an answer, feel free to engage me on the subject in an appropriate venue, instead of unfairly boxing me into an off-topic discussion.SteveStrummer (talk)21:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The questionis related to your !vote, so the venue seemed perfectly appropriate, but the answer doesn't really matter, I suppose. —DoRD (talk)​21:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

...maybe you can drop a user name block onUser talk:Ultrascope Records? Thanks...209.51.172.142 (talk)16:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Done, butWP:UAA is really a better venue for these. Cheers —DoRD (talk)​16:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Not when the IP, who obviously thinks they are entitled to special treatment, can get a quicker response here.--Bbb23 (talk)16:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Administratorsmust 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

This message was sent to all administrators following arecent motion. Thank you for your attention. For theArbitration Committee,Cameron1159803:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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 arerequired to "have strong passwords andfollow appropriate personal security practices." We haveupdated 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 anoptional 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, -Cameron1159821:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi DoRD,

As I was looking over the loci of an ongoing dispute, I discovered that I made a few edits yesterday while logged out, and that you subsequently blocked my IP for evading scrutiny. While I understand the conclusion, in fact it is not accurate (i.e., editing logged out was honest error). This is not an unblock request, since I don't expect to edit from that location for the duration of the block, but I wanted to set the record straight; I believe I have now explicitly claimed the edits left on talk pages.

All the best,JBL (talk)20:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I find it a bit odd that there was no notification associated with the block (either of me or, it seems, of the IP -- not that I would have seen the latter). Is this just the prohibition on CU identifying IPs with accounts? --JBL (talk)20:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for coming forward about this, explaining what happened, and claiming the edits. I will go ahead and unblock the IP address now. You surmise correctly about the lack of a message regarding the block. The privacy policy prohibits checkusers from publicly connecting accounts with IP addresses, so we frequently avoid any messages that might lead to another user figuring out a connection. Thanks again. —DoRD (talk)​21:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'll try to be more careful with browser-switching in the future, specially when flaming other users ;). --JBL (talk)21:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

DoRD, I'm asking you because, you know, you know everything. I just blockedthis one for trolling, and I see there's a Procseebot block in the log. Can you check to see if anything else, something more longterm, needs to be done? Thanks,Drmies (talk)15:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oh,Acroterion, you may know about this too, giventhis here. Thanks,Drmies (talk)15:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, the first IP doesn't appear to be a proxy now (at least according to theproxy checker), but for other reasons, I extended the block to something a little longer. —DoRD (talk)​15:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you don't mind my asking those technical questions.Drmies (talk)16:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I don't mind at all. —DoRD (talk)​16:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I do, and he seems to think he's not being obvious.Acroterion(talk)16:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks!GorillaWarfare (talk)17:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome :) —DoRD (talk)​18:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Dolbycare123 andMhd1274 are new socks in the seriesHackerwala111,Mhdsuhail007,Mhdsuhail123,Mhdsuhail111. Apparently, latest sock Hackerwala111 was blocked only recently. Talk:Madhura Raja is a common page both Dolbycare123 and Hackerwala111 edited. Both accounts created on same day (May 17IST). There might be more undetected accounts, I think. Please take necessary action.137.97.95.250 (talk)11:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Please take this toWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mhdsuhail111. —DoRD (talk)​11:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks.137.97.127.39 (talk)18:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I've just realised this was an LTA issue!-Funky Snack (Talk)16:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, if you'd read the edit summary I left when removing the invalid votes, you would have known that before wasting my time. By the way,Funky Snack, what account(s) have you previously edited with? —DoRD (talk)​16:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and I apologied for the misunderstanding. Only this one - why?-Funky Snack (Talk)16:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Because new users don't nominate articles to be deleted on their third edit. —DoRD (talk)​16:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I've been using Wiki for ages now without an account, making minor edits on anything radio and TV related. My understanding was that unless you have an account, you're unable to nominate articles for deletion and this is something I was interested in doing. To be honest, you're the first person I've had a misunderstanding with and don't wish to ruin my reputation with Wikipedia so wish to keep it that way. I'm not nasty, I haven't been causing bother and I like to think come of my edits/AfDs are helpful.-Funky Snack (Talk)16:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you like how I accidentally outed you as a sock ofTonyBallioni inmy edit summary?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}19:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

And we would have gotten away with it to if it weren't for you meddling kids!TonyBallioni (talk)19:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? Can't anyone keep a secret? —DoRD (talk)​19:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I was about to post an extremely long comment onthis AN/I thread, and you blocked the problematic user who was attacking Zebedee as I wrote it, and I didn’t even end up posting it. Thank you.InvalidOS (talk)01:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with this, but it looks like the edits continue withUser talk: BoogieFreeman. Today inthis edit, they updated an articles lead section to include statements such as,

"Mysterio is considered by many wrestling journalists and industry peers to be one of the best professional wrestlers of all-time, having gained praise for his move-set, athleticism, and the quality of his rivalries"

and

" has also gained praise for helping change the perception of main event performers in professional wrestling, increasing responsiveness to smaller performers in the industry"

These statements are fully unsourced (sources would absolutely be needed for the statements) by the article body and is the same type ofWP:NPOV/WP:WIKIVOICE I was talking about before.StaticVapormessage me!07:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

They responded by addingsources, however pointless it was since 90% of it was either false sourcing (source says nothing close to what they are citing), blogs/self published databases or the vast majority beingWP:SYNTH, deliberate or not I don't know, but the sources didn't come close to saying what he was adding to the lead. So still NPOV violation if he/she is adding a ton of praise without proper sourcing.StaticVapormessage me!14:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the messages. I know that they've been blocked for this before, but for the moment, I'm just leaving them a warning. I'll check back to see whether it has been effective or not, and if the behavior continues, I won't hesitate to block them.(Courtesy ping to331dot) —DoRD (talk)​14:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm new to this and any other advice would be greatly appreciated.TheDoDahMan (talk)15:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi DoRD, you granted me an IP block exemption about a year ago. The exemption expires next week, but I still need it, so I'd like to request that it be extended for another 12 months. Thank you! —Granger (talk·contribs)21:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay,Mx. Granger, I've extended IPBE for another year. —DoRD (talk)​12:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• User:Blue and Green Lover was blocked by you:

• 15:19, 5 June 2017 DoRD talk contribs block blocked Blue and Green Lover talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ({{checkuserblock-account}}) (unblock | change block)

Please add to the user page or talk page why the account was blocked for example "as a sock of ..." or whatever. --PBS (talk)15:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

When I don't leave a tag or block message, there's usually a good reason, e.g. WP:DENY, and since this block was made over two years ago, I don't have any recollection of who the account belongs to. —DoRD (talk)​12:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for all your work over the years.Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)21:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• I hope you stick around. I was glad to see your activity after your resignation. —usernamekiran(talk)22:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

June

cornflowers

some wildflowers of thanks and understanding, for your time outside --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure the details, and you don't owe an explanation, just wanted to say you were one of the guys I really enjoyed working with.Dennis Brown -2¢12:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. And Dennis: Likewise.

For a quick explanation, I'll just say that the enwiki community is like the world's largest dysfunctional family, and I no longer wish to hold a position of responsibility here. —DoRD (talk)​12:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand, DoRD--but what are we, what am I going to do without your help and advice? You have given much to our beautiful project, and I can only hope that the WMF gets off its damn ass and do something useful that makes editors like you (and28bytes too? oh no...) want to return. Soon I'll be the only one left, and that's just because I'm not as brave or principled like you and Floq and WJBScribe and the others. Thank you.Drmies (talk)14:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my thanks for all that you have done here over the years. I'm old enough to remember what DoRD means and my favorite example is stillList of Episodes episodes. Best wishes to you and yours.MarnetteD|Talk15:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Very sorry to see you go. --Rschen775415:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Very sad to see this as you were another great admin here, Thank you for your service as well as for your contributions to the project, Take care, –Davey2010^Talk15:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

while I respect your decision, the Admin corps is significant less redundant today...and that makes me sad. –xeno^talk11:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"I became disillusioned with some of the politics of en.wiki"

Thank you for fighting vandalism, spam, advertisement and nonconstructve editing, for welcoming new users, for specializing in the patrolling of sockpuppetry cases, for "I became disillusioned with some of the politics of en.wiki" (2010), - you are anawesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no.2245 of Precious, a prize ofQAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk)07:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Im leaving wikipedia. I am 289Kid on Fandom/Wikia. I will only edit very rarelyAlexCruz289 (talk)02:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

These days, I'm not here much myself. —DoRD (talk)​12:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry about that. -Neutralhomer •Talk • 06:31 on November 16, 2019 (UTC)

No worries, it's an easy fixNeutralhomer. —DoRD (talk)​13:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Damon Runyon's short story"Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of thehot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well DoRD.MarnetteD|Talk23:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season.Lightburst (talk)03:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはDoRDたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP03:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From theBirthday Committee,CAPTAIN RAJU^(T)06:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear DoRD/Archive 14,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join theTen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. ​

Best regards,Chris Troutman (talk)19:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Never been much of a bourbon neat guy, typically prefer on the rocks, but Basil Hayden’s neat isn’t bad. Anyway, thought of you and how the project is a bit sadder without your presence. Hope you and Mrs. DoRD are staying safe and healthy.TonyBallioni (talk)03:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

With Bbb23 having been shoved out the door by ArbCom, would you be interested in picking up the mop again and regaining your CU privileges? I always knew you to be a very good CU, and we need someone like that right now.Beyond My Ken (talk)16:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but no. I expect that it'll be difficult, if not impossible, for the remaining CUs to pick up the slack, but I still have no interest in holding any position of responsibility here. Besides, I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the checks I used to make would run afoul of the current interpretation of policy. —DoRD (talk)​17:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk)05:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk)08:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

As of today, there are twelve candidates standing for positions on theArbitration Committee. I've worked closely with several of them, peripherally with a few more, and know them to be good, principled people. Why they'd want to subject themselves to what ARBCOM will bring is beyond me. —DoRD (talk)​02:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Some of them wish you'd have a similar lapse in judgement and come back :)TonyBallioni (talk)02:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Nods head so hard she gives herself a concussion.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}22:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Nods hear so hard you'd think she was at Metallica'sPoor Touring Me concert atKeyArena circa 1997.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}22:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

While I miss interacting with a few of the people here, present company included, I don't miss much else. —DoRD (talk)​12:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Worried about you and frozen/broken pipes and icicles on ceiling fans and so on. Did you come through okay? Or at least without too much damage?Katie^talk17:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

All's well, but check your email for details. —DoRD (talk)​19:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk)07:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock request from BashurMan --Deepfriedokra(talk)21:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It's been over ten years since we last communicated.— Precedingunsigned comment added by208.38.231.116 (talk)20:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I have been waiting for a response from you, Old Friend. I miss our cat and mouse games.— Precedingunsigned comment added by208.38.231.121 (talk)03:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey,DoRD. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of theWikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!Chris Troutman (talk)17:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back, was nice to see your username show up my watch. Hope all is well. -FlightTime(open channel)21:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day,DoRD, from theWikipedia Birthday Committee!Have a great day!141Pr {contribs}10:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

An editor has asked fora deletion review ofKenneth Uwadi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Jõsé^hola23:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)