Jump to content

User talk:Tnxman307/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Abusing multiple accounts?

[1] I did not find an SPI for this user.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there wasn't one. I came across that account while investigating someone else. TNXMan 20:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Monte?

Good day. Can look at this report please [2] ? Dighapet (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Email

Just sent you one. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied. TNXMan 13:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Silvertel

Hi, Can you suggest any changes to the Silvertel page which would enable us to restore it. We feel we would like to have the company listed as a few of our bigger competetors have pages listed.

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicktayler (talk • contribs) 13:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. I would suggest reading our guide to writing your first article. TNXMan 13:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

wrong

You wrongly blocked a couple of people under Kewlarticle and they are not me.

I also STRONGLY protest being called a sock of Dereks1x.

Alison's talk page is protected so I cannot give her a message. Please give her a message. I strongly protest being called Derek because I am User:The Transhumanist. Go ahead, checkuser me to see that I am telling you the truth. You will find I am telling the truth. I, The Transhumanist, have used this IP and this computer before.

I am permitted to use a 2nd account (see the policy carefully). It is permitted when I don't want attacks on my main account. My main account does not edit the same article. Please do not tell anyone else that I am The Transhumanist.

George Washington III (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the real Transhumanist would realize he was posting on a public talk page. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Funny story... the Transhumanist hasn't used your IP. Cool story, though. TNXMan 11:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
No, MY name is The Transhumanist — Ched :  ?  16:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Straight Line Stitch

Hi, you salted this topic after someone created it four times in a row in 2009. The thing is, you salted it indefinitely, so I can't recreate the article even though the group now passes WP:MUSIC. They've just released their sophomore record on Koch/E1, and it hit the Billboard charts ([3]). I was hoping you could unsalt it so I could get to work on a proper article for them. Thanks. Chubbles (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Usually when we salt things, we do it for indefinite and let someone who wants to make an article on that topic do a WP:RFPP request to lift protection...or they find an administrator and make a request. Don't know how busy Tnxman is, so I'll go unprotect it now. Happy editing! Syrthiss (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I must say I disagree with that kind of editing philosophy. In this case, you're preventing everyone from creating the article due to the actions of one zealous editor who reposts continuously, sometimes in a matter of minutes. In such cases the protection should be for a set period of time; most of those people don't come back, and if they do you can salt it indefinitely then, because then it's clear that re-creation is an issue. Always salting indefinitely creates a lot of red tape for honest editors. Chubbles (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that Syrthiss.
Chubbles, thanks for bringing this up. If there are other articles you think should be unprotected, you should definitely bring them up at WP:RFPP. TNXMan 18:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

WHY

WHY ARE YOU GETTING MY PAGES OF WIKEPIDIA. GUESS WHAT YOURS IS IF YOU DELETE MINE AGAIN!!!!!!

Signing to enable archiving. TNXMan 19:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Good block

of Crosstemplejay (talk · contribs). I was just about to take this to ANI to request a block. It's good to see an admin keeping an eye out :) Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know if there are further issues. TNXMan 19:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
And now I see that you've made another good block of Joshuaman124 (talk · contribs). Just wondering if you could look at his userpage. Does that need to be deleted or something? I seem to recall that kids putting information about themselves up tends to get removed because of some policy which I can't remember at the moment. Jenks24 (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I've deleted the page as it probably reveals too much info for someone their (supposed) age. Thanks for catching that. TNXMan 19:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I replaced some external links on Los Gatos, California. I live here, I've written a book about the town, I am mindful of the creeping rot links to linkfarms cause. I want readers to have access to useful external links. If you disagree with my choices, please feel free to contact me or respond here.Adallas (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that. I have removed the last three links listed, per WP:ELNO (specifically, point 11). Please also note that Patch.com has been trying to spam their links into various town articles. The other links look OK. Please let me know if you have questions. TNXMan 16:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I disagree. I have nothing to do with Patch, but I think it's providing an information service every bit as valuable as Wikipedia. People come here looking for information about Los Gatos--sending them to an online newspaper about the town seems like a reasonable external link to me.Adallas (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
How is Patch covered under WP:ELNO? They provide local news for my town with a paid editor who formerly worked at a print newspaper. Is Wikipedia biased in favor of printed news? In Los Gatos, the printed weekly is an advertising circular.Adallas (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Patch is covered under #4 ("Links mainly intended to promote a website..."). They have been spamming their links for several months now, trying to add them to as many town/city articles as possible. Wikipedia is not a place to promote websites, local or not. TNXMan 17:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That is an overly-broad reading of #4. Today's featured article, Doolittle, has external links to last.fm and Google music. How is Patch different, other than your perception that Patch is spamming Wikipedia? They are not promoting their websites any more than Google is trying to sell music. Someone interested in the article might be interested in the external link.Adallas (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Tnxman307. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—SpacemanSpiff 16:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mail (2)

Hello, Tnxman307. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 18:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for running a checkuser on Corbridge/Palmtree6600. I know the other accounts are stale, but considering the long pattern of disrupted editing, blocks and obfuscation, maybe they're worth looking into anyway? Could be good info to have when deciding how to deal with the sockmaster. Regardless, thanks for checking it out. Cheers! Arbor8 (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Banned user is back

Hi, Tnxman307. I'm writing because a user whom you were involved in banning has returned and is causing problems at Nicole Kidman and other pages. He is presently blocked for another day for edit warring and incivility.

This user is User:DeadSend4, who at the third post here concedes, “I am Jane his wife. But I'm [not] going to use that account anymore.”

Since you were involved in banning Jane his wife, who notoriously has used a squadron of sockpuppets, I wanted to alert you that while banned, he is back and behaving the same way under another name. I and several editors whom you'll see at Talk:Nicole Kidman would appreciate any help, information or insight you might provide. With great thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I blocked DeadSend4 for abusing multiple accounts on March 29th for two weeks. I blocked the two socks indefinitely. The two weeks are up and, after checking, I don't see any evidence of further socking. I appreciate you keeping an eye out and if there is new evidence of socking, please let me know. TNXMan 17:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

81.164.209.246

81.164.209.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BlackDalek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user which you blocked, is supposedly still blocked. How is he able to edit his user page? And how was he able to create and use a new user ID during his block? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that a checkuser has blocked BlackDalek as an Editor XXV sock, which stands to reason. So how did the IP edit his userpage? And if BlackDalek is Editor XXV, is not the IP also Editor XXV? Or did XXV/BlackDalek use some kind of shenanigan to impostor the IP account? If it's the latter, no details please. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, Muzemike explained it to me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case taking a long time

{{Help me}} Hi, you're the CheckUser who recently declined my request at this sockpuppetry investigation. I was just checking the status of the investigation and noticed that the case is still awaiting administration. It's been 5 days since the case was reported, and I was just wondering when the next step is gonna take place. --Djc wi (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Tnxman307 will reply when he has time to do so. A helpme template won't expedite this, because it simply alerts other editors that you need help. Tnxman307 will receive a notification that there is a message on this page. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 20:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
This looks, to me, like a simple dispute between two editors - hence, see User_talk:Jasminepedia#Jasmine (American singer) and User talk:Djc wi#Jasmine (American singer) name dispute. I don't see that SPI will help here. I'll try to monitor the page. Best,  Chzz  ►  20:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to encourage discussion on the article talk page, now. I've requested input on a couple of project talks, and hope we can resolve it peacefully - I'll try to watch the page, and if necessary request protection - but, for now, I think things are under control.  Chzz  ►  21:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Chzz and GorillaWarfare for the replies. Djc wi - sorry I've been away for a few days. In any case, DeltaQuad has commented on the investigation and Chzz has offered a sound way forward as well. If there's anything else with which I can help, please let me know. TNXMan 16:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

suspected sock puppet

Hi, I've seen you go after some sockpuppets, and I believe I might have found one for you - User:19jduryea and User:3jz01bcs. They made the same edit to Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files one that I reverted and then the other reverted me. Cyberia23 (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/SemiramideSutherland

Hi Tnxman. We still have problems on the french Wikipedia on the Celine Dion and Joan Sutherland aticles with this contributor whose sources and translations are often unreliable. The CU is not 100% positive but there is a very strong suspicion that it's again LegatoXxXxXxXx /F6Coloratura80/Soar/LaTraviata1453/Lully 2010/TheBeautifulOnes, etc., all blocked on fr.

Perhaps you could make an enquiry, as it seems you also have problems with him on en. It would also help us. Thanks in advance. --Voxhominis (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks for catching this. TNXMan 14:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I'll have to send a note to the fr. checkusers. The data I have available here is stale, unfortunately. TNXMan 14:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

I noticed that you blocked Beresford 77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the rationalle of "Abusing Multiple Accounts". While I cannot find the SPI case for them and do not see a request here, I would like to know more information as to how you came to this determination (within the bounds of the privacy concerns). Thank you Hasteur (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I was reviewing reports at AIV when I saw this user. Their contributions very similar to a previously blocked troll, so I investigated. It turns out they had a few accounts they were operating, which I blocked. I hope this answers your question. TNXMan 14:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It does. I saw their addition to the Silence AfD and started combing their contributions when I saw you block them outright (without placing a block notice on their page explaining the reasoning). Thank you for your time and patience. Hasteur (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Interference at Kurmi

Greetings, as part of WikiProject India I've been trying to crack down on uncited "puffery" in caste articles. Not sure if you're an India guy, but there's an endemic issue of every clan out there insisting they are a Kshatriya ("warrior") class. Basically, nobody wants to admit they were historically a farming class. I've worked to investigate the early designations of some of these clans, and if the article has an uncited claim to Kshatriya but the bulk of gBooks say Shudra ("farmers"), I cite that and change to Shudra. As you may note, this provokes an outpouring of hostility from IPs across India and the diaspora (presumably of the clans in question), so I'm hopping to keep the citation proper. Most don't remove the citation, they just change the one word and leave the footnote, which is even worse since it makes it appear their claims are borne out by academics. If this continues on Kurmi I'll probably request full IP protection. Note though that the brand-new account User:KurmiKshatriya tried to place an IP block... but also left the text saying "Kshatriya" which totally conflicts with the citation. In any case, just wanted to update you on the controversy. Any suggestions? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Somehow (I'm not even sure when), the Kurmi article ended up on my watchlist. I basically keep an eye on it to keep out the worst stuff. Thanks to your great info, I'll keep an eye out for the Kshatriya/Shudra change as well. Let me know if there are other ways I can help. TNXMan 19:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem. I already warned KurmiKshatriya for his deceptive edits; not quite sure why he's trying to fake IP Blocks, given that most of the IP vandalism is people doing exactly what he did. Brand new account too... Lovely POV-pushing username as well. I kind of expected all heck would break loose once I put the Shudra citation in, though I did the same with Kunbi (a related clan) and have only gotten a few angry edits a month. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for helping hold down the fort on this issue. I was pretty sure going into it that the citations I added were going to be markedly unpopular and attract IP hostility. I feel I have tried, in the interest of fairness, to document the fact that they themselves claim Kshatriya (warrior) vice Shudra (farmer) origin. When I get a chance, I'll dig up more info to document what's basically their struggle to be re-classed as Kshatriya by forming "Kshatriya Kumri" associations, and their multiple (unsuccessful) court cases under the Brits to be reclassed. I'm not at all trying to be malicious, I was just chaffed by the unreferenced (or partisan-referenced) rewriting of history involved, and if it pops a few balloons, so be it. Thanks again! MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Request a CU

Hi, can you take a look at this CU request?. --Sodabottle (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry folks (esp TnxMan) for jumping in so late, I've just been too busy lately and haven't had time to follow through on my intent to send this one to SPI. I believe this user is User:PONDHEEPANKAR, but that case is stale. However, I recently blocked and confirmed that User:Knight44 44 was the same. Is this related to Knight44 44? Also, I believe User:Kongu Kaviyarasu Gounder is the same. These are all carrying out the POV that PONDHEEPANKAR used to spread on here before he was blocked indefinitely. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, he has a previous history. The guy is indeed pon deepankar. The name is given in the metadata of konguboy's commons image upload. He runs a couple of blogs full of the same pov he is trying to push here. The blog pandyaboy added as external links is also run by pondeepankar [4]--Sodabottle (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh ok. I hadn't noticed that upload. I'll do the B&T now. —SpacemanSpiff 05:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Block/edit

Hi, you blocked my name for account for some reason, I don't really care because I was just trying to make one change. So in leiu of that, I'm not going to try anymore but could you revert the Byzantine Empire article back to what it used to be? The newest edit from someone has nothing to do with the article and added an offensive sentence at the beginning of the article. That's all I was trying to change. Thanks, 66.193.206.2 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure which account you are. TNXMan 18:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tnxman307. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HopeAfrique.
Message added 14:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User Box2112

I saw your entry at User_talk:Box2112#Of Sockpuppets and Alternate Accounts and I wondered if you might take a look at WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Xenophrenic. That case was filed by User:Box2112 and appears to have been done in bad faith. Thanks, Mojoworker (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2sc945

Hey, you recently declined my request for a CU due to it being a user and an IP. However, another quacking (in my mind at least) account has come up, and is named. Would it be in order to CU those two accounts? If not, just tell me why I suppose. Cheers, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've commented there. Let me know if there are further questions. TNXMan 13:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking for sockmaster

Hi,
would you happen to remember if you identified a sockmaster for the following group of editors:

See here for context. Not terribly important though.
Cheers, Amalthea 10:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Drmies made two related AIV reports about someone harassing Ohnoitsjamie. I checked and blocked the lot of them, but I don't remember more than that. Sorry I couldn't remember more, but I hope this helps. TNXMan 13:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You do know he admitted to it. Right?

Regarding the case you closed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Macutty

You do know he admitted to it. Right?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_federal_election,_2011&diff=next&oldid=425943528

and that edits are still being done using IPs, to give the view that it is multiple people coming to a consensus: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_federal_election,_2011&curid=19785302&diff=426578365&oldid=426562699 even after being warned by HelloAnnyong.

--33rogers (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Pondeepankar / Konguboy

Hi, SpacemanSpiff has asked to contact you regarding this sockmaster's socks, as he is going on a break. His socks have been popping up at the rate of one or two a day now. The latest is Kodavatakk (talk · contribs). He went straight to a discussion on the previous discussion on the sockmaster and left a personal attack/insult. Please block this account--Sodabottle (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC). spiff took care of that :-)--Sodabottle (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm online right now, will be off in a couple of hours, so I've taken care of this. At this point there's sufficient evidence to start a new SPI as we've had about six socks over the past month and a half. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas is not indian so he dont know about caste system in india. Do not manipulate wikipedia, kurmi are Kshatriya not shudra. check more history about this before this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.110.239 (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Good Day

SamsungFuqua (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Hi Tnxman307,

I appreciate your help in cleaning up the Fuqua School of Business page. I noticed that most other top business schools also do not have clear citations around things like alumni, academics, school history, etc. on their wikipedia pages, specifically: Harvard Business School, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford Graduate School of Business, Sloan School of Management, Columbia Business School, Stern School of Business, Booth School of Business, Tuck School of Business, Haas School of Business, Ross School of Business, Kellogg School of Management, Yale School of Management, Darden Graduate School of Business Administration, and the Johnson Graduate School of Management.

Could you also clean up those pages as well? This would allow all schools to function in a fair environment on Wikipedia in which all data is accurate, well sourced, and patrolled/cleaned-up when necessary by administrators. Thanks.

SamsungFuqua (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)SamsungFuqua

I'll certainly take a look at those pages. I've also reword the honor code section in the Fuqua article to be more neutral. The way it was worded, it looked like Fuqua was trying to put the best possible spin on the situation. Also, looking at your username, you may want to review our conflict of interest guide, as it may have information relevant to you. TNXMan 16:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Tnxman307. This is helpful. Also, thanks for taking a look at the other schools listed above. I know that they are all making similar types of errors and mistakes in complying with Wikipedia's guidelines for what counts as reliable, well sourced, and non-promotional information and I just want to be sure that all schools are abiding by these same standards. Thanks again. SamsungFuqua (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)SamsungFuqua
Hi Tnxman307 - Any luck cleaning up the other top business school's wiki pages? They seem to be all making errors and mistakes in complying with Wikipedia's guidelines for what counts as reliable, well sourced, and non-promotional information and I just want to be sure that all schools are abiding by the same standards. Thanks. SamsungFuqua (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)SamsungFuqua
Hi Tnxman307- Any progress on addressing this issue and cleaning up the wiki pages of other schools? It has been a month since we first discussed this issue and I want to be sure that this gets addressed soon.

A award!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Your best effort for fighting vandalism.Enjoy! Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 20:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

ItHysteria

I've unblocked МПЛка. This recent group of Russian-like accounts has me concerned that we've slipped a gear here. ItHysteria is an Italian editor, and back in the days that his editing was still fresh he tracked to three different Italian ISPs, which I decided was work, home, and some public place. He's still pretty active as an anonymous editor. If the accounts that have been being blocked recently don't fit into that mold, we've gone astray (one of the reasons that I wish that we placed "accuracy of blocks" as a higher priority than "not revealing IP addresses" is that this can happen).—Kww(talk) 22:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the accounts in the archive are ItHysteria. This particular account doesn't seem to fit the technical data though (especially given the info you listed above). Thanks for keeping your eye on this guy and if more problems arise, please let me know. TNXMan 01:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

HopeAfrique

Hello, Tnxman307. You have new messages at HopeAfrique's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

He responded to the allegations of sockpuppetry made at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HopeAfrique, and since you were the checkuser that confirmed the accounts I thought you might want to take a look at it. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 15:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Case

Should Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imbonwwwww's CU results should be taken with a grain of salt? I'm just asking because they aren't directly confirmed, which could mean your indicating that they could be the same technically, but we should consider other factors. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 20:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be so oblique. :) In this case, while username similarity certainly tie a lot of the accounts together, I would encourage a close look at contributions of the other accounts just to be sure. I hope this helps. TNXMan 21:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Made my recommendation on that. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 21:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Your reversion of my changes to W H Smith

You recently reverted some minor changes I made to this article, without giving any reason. In this case, I'm completely mystified why you reverted, as all my changes did was optimise out a couple of redirects in piped links. So I've re-reverted. If you still think there is a problem, could you please explain yourself. It is, in any case, normally considered good form to give a reason when reverting somebody else's work. - Starbois (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it was my mistake. Apologies about that. TNXMan 15:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
No problems. - Starbois (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

IP 130.126.76.170

I think we unintentionally conflicted in the handling of the AIV report about IP 130.126.76.170. I removed the report as declined because the edit that triggered the vandalism report doesn't appear to be vandalism at all, but rather a good-faith edit attempt that happened to contain a word ('terrorist') that triggered an edit filter. Considering the subject was Ayman al-Zawahiri, I don't think that what the IP wrote is even remotely vandalism. Anyhow, apparently I removed the report at the same time you were blocking the IP. Given the IP's recent edits, I can understand why you blocked (the IP's history is mostly vandalism), but the result is rather paradoxical if anyone were to look at the history of what I did at AIV vs. what you did. --RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely interesting. I saw this edit from three minutes before, which is really what led to the blocking. At least we didn't divide by zero. :) TNXMan 20:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a relatively short block so I don't think it matters too much either way. The IP's varying behavior and the fact that it is associated with a university makes me wonder if it is in a computer lab or something. --RL0919 (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

SPI CU needed

A CU like you is need over at SPI right now.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm getting back late. Is there still an issue? TNXMan 02:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
There are two cases needing your CU access, namely WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Ajdkj and another one.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Continued IP vandalism at Kurmi

Greetings, since you're familiar with the situation, just wanted to note continued attempts by an IP to remove any footnotes (to academic sources) mentioning the Shudra origin of the Kurmi, replacing it with claims to Kshatriya status, and reverting me when I've reverted it back. This is pretty much what's been happening off and on to any caste article where I provide (often copious) academic evidence on Shudra issues. It kind of reminds me of the joke "We lost Vietnam because everyone's uncle who was over there was either a sniper or a helicopter door-gunner; apparently we didn't have a single driver or cook in the country." In any case, if you could consider reinstating some form of block, that'd be great. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-protected. If more issues come up, please let me know. TNXMan 14:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

AmiAyalon1969

Hello Tnxman307. The account AmiAyalon1969 is back editing after you blocked the first proxy. Could you please check this account again? I am almost certain this is the same user as AFolkSingersBeard. Thank you, nableezy - 14:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Already investigated - more proxies blocked. Whatever they're doing, it makes my spidey-sense tingle. Let me know if they pop up again. TNXMan 14:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The user is back again. Could you take a look? Thanks, nableezy - 15:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked some more proxies. Cheers. TNXMan 15:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Panichappy1 definitely not me

Tnxman, if you consider this edit to your talk page to be harassment, please ask me to stop, and I won't repeat the offense. Harassment is not a part of my agenda, I do AGF all Wikipedians.

Why this block? I'm "A.b.d" without the periods, and you could confirm this on my Wikiversity talk page, if you want, and I can understand a suspicion that a single-edit user might be a sock, but ... for sure, this wasn't me, nor do I have any clue whom it might be. So "abusing multiple accounts" might not be true. I wasn't aware that accounts were blocked based on pure speculation like this, and no actual disruption. The edit was useful, so ... WTF? Blocking a user for sock puppetry based on a single edit that was useful? Simply because it restored my self-reverted useful edit? And with the content change being later confirmed by not just any user, but one who had been involved in my bans? (Self-reversion often has this effect, of creating cooperation where there had been conflict.)

RevDel has already begun on my editing, contrary to policy, see this pair of edits, to an article talk page, the original and the self-reversion, now obscured from ordinary users. Why? That's a rhetorical question. I know why.

The edit filter now prevents me from "self-revert per [my user name]" in the summary, and it looks like the body is included, so I'm not doing that any more, and the range blocking has started up, so I'm not wasting my time with self-reversion, pending. I'll still identify edits, where practical, until it gets heavier, if it does. My game is demonstrating the consequences of blocking that ignores WP:IAR (self-reverted edits would normally cause no damage at all, and, as is being shown, when they are reviewed by those who choose to do this, they improve content), and it's completely up to the administrative community how far this goes. And if someone thinks I'm damaging the project, they can discuss this with me, either on my Talk page here -- allow me the access! -- or on Wikiversity. Simple.

By the way, might as well tell you as anyone, the edit filter blocked a good-faith user, [5]. Poor editor had mispelled "and" with a b in the middle, and, since the filter doesn't explain what it's blocking, s/he dropped it after trying twice. The filter is useless for preventing my edits, it simply slowed me down a little as I tested the filter to find out what it was doing, you can see that in the logs. In returned, I learned a lot.

Response is not necessary. Do what you think best for the project. Thanks. --96.236.125.170 (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's fair to give you a response. I know that Panichappy1 isn't you (or at least the IP you're using now). Panichappy1 is however, a returning troll who came up in a check of another account. The troll behind the account is an attention-seeker, and likes to piggyback onto controversial issues (both content-wise and onwiki-wise, if that's a term). The less said about them, the better, really.
I really have no opinion on edit filters, RevDel, or the rest. I read about your project on WR. I do think there are better ways to address any perceived issues and spend your time, really, but that's probably here nor there. TNXMan 22:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tnxman307/Archive_22&oldid=1143539660"