Jump to content

User talk:Tnxman307/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

IP exemption

Hi I just started my account but I want to use it at school but the scool uses a static IP that is blocked so could I get a IP exempt.TucsonDavid (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

To do that, you'll need to post {{unblock-auto}} on your talk page along with the exact message you see when you edit from school. This is the quickest way for us to remedy the situation. Cheers! TNXMan 19:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Aagneya

Hi! I noticed that you recently deleted an article "Aagneya" stating that the article was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I admit that the article has several defects and is far from meeting wikipedia standards, but I was really interested in improving the article. So if it is possible, can you please restore the article? I am very busy in really life and do not have much free time, but I am confident I can make the article much better if I am given a chance and sufficient time. Hope you will consider this request favorably. Thanks. --Gremaldin (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the article to User:Gremaldin/Sandbox, where you can work on improving the article. If you have any questions, please let me know. TNXMan 14:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! --Gremaldin (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

editing

Hello i was thinking about adding a picture to my old high school's wiki since it don't have one can I upload a pic that they use on the official school website btw I have there permission.TucsonDavid (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

We'll need proof that you have their permission before we are able to add the picture. This page offers some good tips about how to use a picture for which you have permission. Wikipedia needs to have explicit proof of permission, since it's very easy for someone to claim they can use a picture, even if it's not the case. TNXMan 13:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Russian.science sock puppets

Hi, I've noticed that you helped take care of (confirm) the malicious activities of user Russian.science here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Russian.science/Archive

It seems that he/she created another account: Historian.X1 and is posting on random users' talk pages trying to convince them to edit the article in his own way. Please take a look at his contributions/ip/etc. As I understand he is now violating even more Wikipedia rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Historian.X1

Regards, --Therexbanner (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it. In the meantime, can you re-open the SPI case so we can keep track of what's going on? If you head over to WP:SPI, you'll see instructions on how to do so (and I can answer any questions too). Thanks! TNXMan 15:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the quick reply! Hopefully, this guy or girl will quit at some point.--Therexbanner (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

More socks of User:Erfurt150 in operation now.

Hi, User:Erfurt150, who you investigated last week, has been let on his parents' computer again and is systematically deleting my edits. So far he's created and edited from these user names:

He's also edited from this IP address:

Is there any way to block that IP address? Cheers! Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, per WP:DUCK, except for the IP, which has only one edit (perhaps he slipped up and forgot to register?), which I'll leave to Tnxman307. I would have to assume he's editing from a mobile IP of some sort, or else the blocks we put on would be more effective. —Soap— 17:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks. I can't comment on the IP, but those accounts (and several more) are blocked now. TNXMan 17:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Great stuff, thanks both!Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Theron

The second account was editing yesterday - all the articles created have been deleted. Peridon (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw that - they haven't edited since then. If they resume, it's probably easier to report them to AIV, where it will be acted on more quickly than it would at SPI. TNXMan 15:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Westport, Connecticut

Hello, Nice job on Westport! I restored a part of the pubic ed (just the list of school) as while they're not inherently noteable/worthy of an article on their own, they are worthy of inclusing in terms of the town's education budget if nothing else. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. Cheers. TNXMan 02:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Undo on Ivyrise

Hello

I can't understand why you undo me on Ivyrise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivyrise

Can you explain ?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoannthor (talk • contribs) 10:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding all of those links are really unnecessary. There should be only one link to the band's official site, as Wikipedia is not a repository of links documenting the band's entire social media presence. TNXMan 11:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Andre Geim's Article

Hi, hope you are doing fine!

Please let me know how my main account might be released and unblocked? Are there any condition for unblocking? It seems that user/administrator: Dric Beetstra is not dispassionate in Geim’s discussion page(he is a Dutch any way), and I never couldn’t to contact him and discuss about the matter! e.g. because of my bad internet connection in that time when he sent me warning and so on. I’ve never been a vandal there! Always I edited the article following the source(s) specially this one:

http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1

Hope to receiving a positive answer from you. Regards, RS P.S. I already sent a request, to arbcom-l@..., but there was not positive reply because a socks. (just a few days ago I knew what is sock in wiki, or I never…). Ok, but just please check my last comments in the article. Of course I need to delete some of the previous phrases there, but you know there was not a fair war at that time, specially from user: Therexbanner. (this would be last account! I needed it because of contacting you. You may kindly send your reply to my talk page here or of my main account, too. Thanks again) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russian.sciences (talk • contribs)

You were blocked temporarily for edit warring, then your block was extended when you continued to create accounts to avoid your block. You may want to look at our standard offer as a path to unblocking, but continuing to create sockpuppets will not aid your cause. TNXMan 16:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just curious why an established newspaper would be deleted from an External Links section while you were wiping out many of the patch.com spams. Even a blog site labeled as news made the cut but yet a legitimate part of the community didn't. Half Moon Bay Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_Moon_Bay_Review, http://hmbreview.com) has been in existence for over a hundred years and is local established newspaper. The local newspapers are highly relevant to towns, especially when there is a small population.

Thank you for your time. I was just curious on the policies. I understand that there should be no advertising or spam but at the same time I can't see the consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.194.82.66 (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If the newspaper has an article, it should be included. I've added a section to Half Moon Bay, California that mentions the newspaper. Thank you for pointing this out. TNXMan 02:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. I'm sorry, but my additions were fully sourced and referenced. There is absolutely no reason why they should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vietnamvat (talk • contribs) 13:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Boris Johnson et al

No problem at all. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. I'll also add this one to my watchlist. Best, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about IPs

If we have a range of IPs making the same edits to a page, is there anything else that can be done about those ip addresses, if there's a suspicion they may be linked to the same person the way we report sockpuppeteers? (See an example here in Rahul Khanna's history page) Or semiprotection is more than enough to fix this problem and hope the ip editor moves on? Thanks in advance for any advice you can give. --John KB (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection is usually the way to go. Checkuser won't tell you much that isn't already available from WHOIS, geolocation, etc. I haven't had a moment to glance at the page, are the edits unconstructive? TNXMan 11:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's all they are, unconstructive. Ips make the same edits in several articles and those are the only edits they make, then get blocked, change to a new ip address, repeat. Have seen several cases of this behavior, not just in Bollywood films and actors. In some cases, there's a username, and you just know they're the same person. (Here I'm not sure how to report them, or if I should report the ip as a sock of the username. If you help me clarify this, it would be greatly appreciated).
But in other cases, like the Rahul Khanna case above and several other actors, you just have a bunch of ips and there's nothing else to do but to semi-protect the page. At least that's my understanding of the rules, that's why I was asking if there's a sock report for ip addresses that only make unconstructive edits in several pages (since they know they'll get indef blocked and declared socks if they did the same with several usernames). --John KB (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
No, there's no sock report for IP addresses only. If there is a username in use, an SPI can see if there are any sleeper accounts (accounts operated by the same person), but checkuser will not tie an account to an IP. In other words, you can connect accounts to accounts and IPs to IPs, but not accounts to IPs. If it's just IPs committing vandalism, the best idea is to list the page at WP:RFPP for semi-protection. TNXMan 14:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I don't know if this explained somewhere (since that was my suspicion, you cannot connect an ip to an account), but semi-protecting those articles is the way to go. Thanks. --John KB (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sock investigation

Thanks, that was quick and very helpful... Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem! TNXMan 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

re

[1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you do a range check? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. TNXMan 17:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Russian.science sock puppet encore

Hi,

This guy has now added insults too (at least I think it's him per WP:DUCK.) Now as an IP. Could you run CheckUser please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.109.11.180

The IP trace shows he's in Russia (no surprise here), and his ISP as "ISP at MSM". Any idea what that is/how to prevent him from sock-puppeteering?--Therexbanner (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but checkuser cannot connect IP addresses to named accounts. I can certainly investigate any more named accounts that come up though. I hope this helps. As for prevention, it's best to just report them as they come up. You may also want to request semi-protection for the article, which will delay new accounts from editing it. TNXMan 15:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, well it's definitely the same guy, how do I report him?--Therexbanner (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Since there is only one edit today, the best action is probably just to keep an eye on them. You can report them to AIV if they persist. TNXMan 15:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks!--90.192.240.15 (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Sorry, forgot to sign in.--Therexbanner (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The guy or girl was warned at 62.109.11.180, and has now appeared at 158.108.16.199, where he already amassed an impressive 3 warnings and a temp block in 3 days of editing Rahul Khanna. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:158.108.16.199 I traced it to Thailand but it's clearly the same guy/girl. Could he be using a selection of proxies?--Therexbanner (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Edgarrr

Perhaps not the last - User:Salequieter created this page. Peridon (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Created which page? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. TNXMan 16:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
User page saying the account was blocked as a sock of Edgarrr (and me referring to your comment at the end of Ed's SPI. Now blocked anyway for being disruptive. Probably was. Peridon (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Tnxman, I'm seeking advice about this SPI. I am currently being assaulted by three users on this case, and their criticisms have nothing to do with sockpuppetry. The SPI is vindictive and serves only for personal attacks, especially since you said the SPI is invalid. Can you advise me as to what I should do about all of this? Sorry if I'm vague. Thanks! BS24 (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Mynameisstanley

Hello. I brought attention to a sockpuppet, User:Mynameisstanley, a few months ago which you then listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mynameisstanley. I believe this user has returned under the name Brest Voblast. It seems to me that that this user creates a new account, dumps it after a few edits, and starts over with a new one. It looks like Stanley been editing almost continuously since 2009 so blocking never really catches up to him. I think you might have a serious problem. 72.74.208.230 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Thank you for bringing this up. TNXMan 16:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've found two more possible accounts.

72.74.211.53 (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley

Mark was accused at 02:15, 28 October 2010 and found guilty at 14:57, 28 October 2010. He was off line during the entire sequence. (Look at his edit log.) He posted a response on his talk page as soon as he logged on and Courcelles deleted it 6 minutes later without copying it to the SPI page. This is a complete railroad. And now you have closed the page just minutes after I posted comments. Q Science (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, first let me point out a couple of things. I didn't archive the page - a SPI clerk did that. Secondly, my contribution to the page was to simply mark it for close - I didn't remove any sections or comments from anyone. The admin who took action on the case was Tim. Finally, checkuser will not connect IPs to named accounts, as per our privacy policy. I hope this helps answer your questions. TNXMan 19:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Q Science (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bill Simmons

I think you're being far too pedantic with your insistence on protecting the "Bill Simmons" entry from information you deem to be too trivial (e.g. that he has had a two babies, a dog, and an internet router named after him) when Simmons himself explicitly and publicly requested that information be added to his wikipedia entry.

I hope you will consider allowing that information to be added to his page.71.199.193.108 (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Evanston, Illinois (local media)

Hi, you and other tnx editors have been removing references to patch.com under Local Media (someone else apparently removed all the other media except the Daily Northwestern). Evanston Patch.com is a real media outlet with real reporters attending and writing on events in Evanston. I am not sure why this was deleted. It is what it is. I have restored this and listed other media outlets.Ouilmette (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Ouilmette

And I've reverted it. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm or a place to link to every website that exists for a town. Furthermore, patch.com has been spamming their website across multiple town articles. Please see this page as to why this is not allowed. TNXMan 11:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you hide this...

Could you hide this revision. Inka888ContribsTalk 01:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. It doesn't really look vulgar enough to revision-delete. It just looks like low-level vandalism. TNXMan 14:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tnxman307. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 16:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Irving Literary Society socks and meats

Hello Tnxman307. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) - bit of a mess. Even if your revised conclusion is that these editors are separate individuals, they were clearly coordinating off-wiki, and they messed with numerous AfDs. (They did not allow Wikipedia to make an objective decision about the notability and veracity of various societies that may or may not have existed at various times, and they made no admission of their offsite connection prior to the sock case). Do you want to add your own recommendation of what to do at the ANI thread? In particular, I'd like to know if you would view favorably the participation of these accounts in future AfDs or DRVs on similar topics.

There is some suggestion of actual fabrication at Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)/Archive 1#Misrepresented sources but I haven't looked into it to be sure I agree.

There is one AfD still running at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination), opened on October 28. I do not see any of the socks/meats/possible colleagues participating there so far. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I haven't had time to review the material you posted fully, but I will as soon as I'm at the computer for more than a short length of time. Cheers. TNXMan 11:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'd like some clarification too. I was the one who brought the AN/I report (now archived here). Following your messages on the talk pages of this group of editors regarding the guidance they should follow, I assumed they'd follow it and considered it resolved. However, since unblocking, two of them have been !voting in AfDs for articles created by a third member of the group, all are for biographies of living people people who are claimed to be members of the The Irving Literary Society. Neither of the !voters have declared their connection to the creator and the Society in the AfDs and one of them is the self-admitted current "Dean" of the Society. The AfDs in question are Peter Shalvoy, Aaron Raitiere, and Ryan Neil Falcone. – Voceditenore (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both for following up on this. I'm not saying there are not issues here - the !voting is concerning, as is failure to disclose their connection per this page. However, after conversing with Risker, it's clear these are different people. That's really the extent of my conclusion. If they are causing problems, then action would be taken in a different forum, whether it's an RFC or ANI post or what have you.
EdJohnston asked for my recommendation. I would suggest treating them like any other problematic editors that agree with each other (you can always find examples of this in various disputed areas - Greece/Macedonia, Israel/Palestine, British Isles, etc.). Give them a final warning and then start handing out blocks if they refuse to listen. I hope this helps and if either of you have questions, please let me know. TNXMan 17:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
And thanks back for your advice. However, I won't be issuing warnings and blocks. I'm not an administrator.;-) Their cookie-cutter arguments at the 3 AfDs I pointed out above are so poor, that hopefully any closing admin would disregard them anyway. Nevertheless, there are now three (I forgot this one) "keep" opinions from this lot in each of the AfDs. I wish there more eyes on those discussions. Sigh. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tnxman307. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 03:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your help!

many thanks for your help! Aminervi (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help in the Help Desk, I read some of the articles you pointed and as a new user I found them very very interesting and helpful. I'm mostly a self learner so now I know a lot! Thanks. Tlakuache (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a question. I've seen that the edit summary textbox is used to give a small description of your changes but do I have to write down an edit summary all the time? Even if the edit is very small? Is it wrong not to write an edit summary? Tlakuache (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not wrong to leave the edit summary blank, but filling in something is useful to other readers. It tells everyone what your edit accomplished without requiring them to read through the entire diff. You can read more about edit summaries at Help:Edit summary. TNXMan 11:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

BS24

BS24 is on indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts. Why another admin would summarily block him for being an admitted sock, while you would not, suggests you're not suitable to review contentious SPI's. Unfortunately, due to your inaction, BS24 disruptively edited many other pages, and after being block for 3 reverts, another admin looked at this SPI page - which you would "not read"unless you got a Reader's Digest take on it - and figured it out quick. They got what you missed: BS24 is not a stale account and an admitted sock can not gain a fresh start. You were lazy and negligent. (Feel free to hide or delete this. Is there a process to file grievances against admins?) [2]The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

So noted. TNXMan 17:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Weak. You feel any obligation to defend yourself or explain yourself? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, AKA, while I agree with you many times, because usually you have strong arguments, and while I agree that the block of BS24 is a good decision, I think this discussions here is really not very helpful. Let it go. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Nah, no free rides for the pusillanimous. He needs to be called out for not doing his job. BS24 would be out of the way and we would be much closer to gaining consensus, and other pages wouldn't have to deal with possibly the most disruptive editor I have ever run across. He even waged war on the Ford Mustang page. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
No. Calling someone out is a very bad idea. Especially also in this case where I don't see any mistake of Tnxman at all. I also think that adding comments about BS24's personality are really not necessary. I think there is nothing positive you can archive in this way. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Artist - the fact that you have come here guns-a-blazing and demanding someone's head for not taking action suggests that you're not suitable to review checkuser/admin actions. Yes, I'm a fellow checkuser. Yes, I'm a fellow admin. Draw whatever conclusion you will. But here's what else I am - a fellow volunteer on this project. I can't speak for TnXman, but as a relatively new checkuser, I definitely feel pressure to get it right and avoid any hint of impropriety when dealing with private data. I even get that as an admin; see (for example) this bit, where I was practically accused of enforcing my own views (against policy) simply because I am an admin. Perhaps the pressure is self-imposed, but I personally feel like if other admins are going to rely on me to say "yes - the evidence suggests this" in order to block users (usually indefinitely), I'm going to want to get it right as close to 100% of the time as I possibly can. And furthermore, if I have had personal interaction with involved parties, I would probably consider it inappropriate to provide evidence that might get users blocked. I don't know if that's what is going on here, but I do see a message from BS24 earlier on this very talk page, which suggests to me there might have been previous interaction. You got a respectful "so noted" to your rant. I think you should have been satisfied with that instead of excoriating TnXman. You may disagree; you may wish for an explanation (and then ask for it)...but from what I see, you're overreacting here. How about a little helping of WP:AGF?  Frank  |  talk  20:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

First thing, there's decaffeinated. Tnxdude got all I want to give him. I could care less about any follow up. He knows what he did, and it's for him to live with it, or better yet, improve from it. Since you don't care to know what happened, I'll respond in kind and not care what you had to say about it. I honestly don't know what the greater part of your post said after your professed disdain for being informed. Try to protect your turf all you want. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
If TnXman got "all" you "want" to give him, perhaps you got all you deserve from him. As you state you "could care less about any follow up" (your words), perhaps you would be kind enough to do us all a favor and start "caring less", as you put it. You got a detailed explanation below, as well as at the original SPI page. You requested something a CU cannot provide, and CUs generally will not take administrative action in a case once they have weighed in as a CU. Your attitude on this page will not change CU or other Wikipedia policy, and it's highly unlikely to change community interpretation and implementation of that policy.  Frank  |  talk  04:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC) PS: If you have more to say on this matter (and I understand if you don't care to engage), perhaps either your talk page or mine would be a more appropriate venue.
About that foot of yours you just shot. I opened a non CU SPI. Tnx came across it in that state but he balked (whined, really) at having to read "all of this." How cute is that? He then claimed only stale accounts were at issue, and ludicrously suggested it might be a legit fresh start issue. (The idea that a blocked account in an SPI has to be fresh, no stale, implies a statute of limitations which even you know doesn't exist.) If you had checked out the SPI first you would no this, and you could have spared yourself the embarrassment of defending Tnx. As for scolding me, I'm gonna consider the source as insolent as the admin you are going to bat for. As for attitude, Your superior 'tude charms me just as much as if you asked me to shave your mothers back. It' s also typical of those lamely protecting their turf. You might want to stop before you fire at that other foot, Jim. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it's best we cease direct interaction at this point.  Frank  |  talk  12:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
No kidding. You just saved your other foot. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, Frank - the points you make are good ones. As a side note, I have not interacted with BS24 before this case. To briefly summarize this case:
  1. I saw the case had been open for sometime, so I opened the page and was confronted with 30k+ of text. I asked for a summary (perhaps a litte abruptly? I don't think so, but I see how it could be interpreted that way).
  2. After a summary was provided, it was clear that technical data would not be able connect BS24 to any previous accounts (because the older ones were  Stale). BS24 made this moot by admitting to being a blocked user returning under a different name.
  3. I pointed out that the checkuser portion of the case was complete, since a) no technical connections could be made and b) BS24 admitted to being a blocked user. I suggested that SPI may not be the most appropriate venue for further action. Neither side seemed entirely happy with that suggestion and the case was left for a closing admin to review. Nakon closed the case.
Artist, you are free to bring this for review wherever you think is appropriate - I don't mind. I am saddened by the fact you think an "admitted sock can not gain a fresh start" - I know many have and are now productive contributors. In the future, if you feel I am not handling an SPI case correctly, please let me know, as I am always open to constructive criticism. TNXMan 22:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Clarification, an admitted sock who sought to avoid scrutiny is what I meant. And you would have known that this was exactly the case - if you had been diligent you would have noticed that myself and other editors did much to establish BS24 did not deserve a fresh start. You're supposed to block socks, not enable them, and Nakon, and other admins who dealt with BS24 et al., clearly weren't confused on that point. (Feel the lack of consensus?) Final suggestion, skip with the "I'm not reading all of this" , That's a snotty 'tude. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Tnxman307. You have new messages at AzureCitizen's talk page.
Message added by AzureCitizen (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Aminami

Hi Tnxman307. You marked this user as a sock today (WP:SPI/Aminami (it was listed at WP:SPI/Hishmi before), and they've since been blocked but it looks very different to me - they've been here for years and don't sign their name before posting like the other confirmed socks. Is there a chance this user just happens to be editing from the same IP as the others, but isn't actually the same person? SmartSE (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This user was on the same IP and same computer around the same time as the other accounts. However, when I rechecked, they were also on IPs not used by the socks. I'll ask another checkuser to verify my findings - thank you for bringing this up. TNXMan 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I've left a note on Frank's page asking him to review my findings. TNXMan 22:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. SmartSE (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I can confirm the findings above: same IP and same UA in overlapping time frames. To my way of thinking, CU is as much an art as a science, but when you find several editors from the same IP editing the same articles, and no other editors or articles from that IP, it's a pretty strong indicator. Is this 100% ironclad? Probably not. Is it highly likely? Yes.  Frank  |  talk  05:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
They've requested unblocking twice. The behavioural evidence is poor IMO - they have been edited for years and I don't see why they would create a new account (Hishmi) to write an autobiography about themselves. Surely it is worth AGFing and unblocking them, if they create any an article on Hishmi Jamil Husain then they can always be blocked again. SmartSE (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

CU on Andranikpasha

Hi Tnxman307. Thanks for checking the user. If not much trouble, I'll file another one shortly. Activeness of unregistered users in the current heated debates raises suspicion. Thanks! Tuscumbia (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see here [3]. Thanks Tuscumbia (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You deleted my page, while I was still working on it, if you would of given me a few minutes, it would have been completed with good cause, Thanks very much! PresidentCory (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Green Harvest Technologies

Hi- My first time doing this. Trying to set up a page shedding light on bio-plastics and a company that is pioneering it. Not trying to advertise services, only trying to inform people about the problem of plastics and the solution being developed. This seems like ver useful info to people concerned about health risks.

Please advise what part of this was non-wiki friendly and I'll make the edits accordingly.

Patkenny2010 (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it did not indicate why the group was notable enough to warrant an article. It was also a borderline advertisement. I would suggest reading our info on writing your first article, as that may assist you. You may also want to write a draft of the article in your userspace (something like User:Patkenny2010/Sandbox) where you can work on the article before moving it to the mainspace. TNXMan 20:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Question for you...

Hello Tnxman307,

First let me disclose my COI so as to not create any problems. I am an employee of Sleepnet Corporation, a fourteen year old company that manufactures gel sleep apnea masks.

I understand that it is not appropriate for an employee to write up the information on their employer for obvious reasons. However, I would like to see a page created in the interest of providing factual information that could assist the approximately 20 million individuals that suffer from this deadly sleep disorder.

Our top three competitors (Resmed, Respironics, and Fisher & Paykel) all have Wikipedia pages, and it is my hope that Sleepnet will have one too.

I thank you ahead of time for your consideration of the matter and your advice on how best to proceed for the common good.

Cheers, Jr2443 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC) aka Jess

The article was deleted because it did not indicate why the group was notable enough to warrant an article. It was also a borderline advertisement. I would suggest reading our info on writing your first article, as that may assist you. You may also want to write a draft of the article in your userspace (something like User:Jr2443/Sandbox) where you can work on the article before moving it to the mainspace. You may also be interested in our articles for creation or requested articles processes, as they are appropriate venues with editors with a conflict of interest. TNXMan 20:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tnxman307/Archive_15&oldid=1139115242"