Jump to content

User talk:Tnxman307

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aviyal (talk | contribs) at 19:23, 16 May 2012 (→My last case). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is Tnxman307's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Tnxman307.

  • If I left you a message:
please answer on your talk page.
  • If you leave me a message:
I will answer on my talk page.
  • Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
  • Sections on this talk page are archived automatically after 10 days without new replies.
    If this happens, please start a new section and include a diff to the last replied-to version in the relevant archive (see the list of archives below this box).
  • If you feel I have made a mistake, please feel free to leave me a note. I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Similarly, if you believe that one of my admin actions should be reverted, I will not consider it wheel-warring if you do so. However, do please leave me a note here informing me of it.
  • I am not here everyday. If you leave me a message and I don't respond immediately, don't panic! I will get back to you the next time I am online and see your message.
  • Finally, welcome! I enjoy editing here and hope you do too. Cheers!

Mail

Hey Tnxman, did you get my mail from a couple of days ago? BTW, nice Facebook fan page you got, you douche! Thanks man, Drmies (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I replied to your email. TNXMan 21:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. BTW, I don't remember signing off on your request for a little vacation. Hope you enjoyed--now back to the grindstone, my friend... Drmies (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rinpoche]U]

They are editing again, notifying per your request though I suspect another webhost will be blocked. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this edit [1] re this User:LHirsig...Modernist (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you get a moment...

Do you think you could stop by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual‎ and mete out some blocks for the sockpuppets of this highly persistent POV warrior? Thanks much. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets of User:Seblodgett

I noticed you blocked a couple of sockpuppets that belong to User:Seblodgett. I think I found a few more since I noticed a similar pattern of sock puppet edits made on Chinese American. I would like you to investigate these potental sockpuppets further.The Elixir Of Life (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potential socks

No comment on the IPs (per our privacy policy), but the accounts are matches. I've blocked several more. TNXMan 18:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CharlieMuk

You're confident that CharlieMuk was a sockpuppet? I see where the IP-identified user posted similarly at Phoenix Jones but sometimes new users accidentally log out and don't notice it. As well, would you mind taking a look at the dispute there and perhaps chime in as to whether the participants are behaving as they should and in accordance with policy? Colton Cosmic (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The block was for using two accounts, CharlieMuk and User:CharlieInSeattle, not the IPs. Users should use one account to edit a topic area, not several. TNXMan 18:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to see what you linked there but there doesn't seem to be a user page for CharlieinSeattle. This seems like an unusual block (I'm not the only one who thinks so [2]), also given that your validating rationale on review (sockpuppeting) is different from the original admin's block (disruptive editing (including "vandalism?!"). Not to put you out overmuch, but for the sake of transparency, can you clear me up on CharlieMuk's "topic area sockpuppetry" for which you permanently blocked him. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser evidence showed the two accounts are the same. As I mentioned, the two accounts both edited the same topic area, which is an impermissible use of multiple accounts. TNXMan 13:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update?

Can you explain to me what it means when you put a case on hold like this Nangarbat one.Ankh.Morpork 18:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It means I'm still reviewing some information related to the case. I've asked other checkusers to review it as well. When there's an update, I'll post on the SPI page. TNXMan 18:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Class project

Hello Tnxman307, you might want to have a look at User talk:Seblodgett. The master from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seblodgett has just asked for unblocking of his and his students' accounts. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I'll go through and unblock everyone. I'm reminded of Arrested Development "This is what happens when you don't leave a note!" TNXMan 13:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need a quick check

Any chance you could run a checkuser on the now-deleted username at Talk:Tim Worstall? He's popped up again twice, so I guess the account creation blocked thing isn't working too well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're hopping IP ranges, so there's not much I can do. Thanks for keeping an eye out, though. TNXMan 13:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Not like this person's really trying to hide, anyways. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold

It's 'cuhold'. :) T. Canens (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May u check this please

I tried to leave a message to the admin who blocked AA193 (talk · contribs) but couldn't, I thinks Parsa1993 (talk · contribs) is a sock of AA193 based on same numbers appearing in their names, shares same nationalistic POV and English, edits articles of same exact region. If you can please do a quick CU to see who this POV pusher is who uses different socks. Thanks.--182.177.15.242 (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to follow up on this is to file a report at WP:SPI. This will keep all of the info in one place and make it easier to track in the future. Please remember that you'll need to include specific diffs as supporting evidence. If you have any questions as you go, please let me know. TNXMan 13:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AnAimlessRoad sock

You recently closed a sockpuppet investigation against User:AnAimlessRoad,[3] who was circumventing his site ban by editing from ip 77.99.63.125. You noted that editor hadn't been active for a couple days, and suggested I refile if he returns. Well, he has.[4] Do you recommend I refile? Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 02:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urimai Kural

You have deleted an article titles Urimai Kural in august 2009. Now I would like to start the article with fresh content. So Please Unlock the page. Balaji (Let's talk) 09:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You're far better off creating a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT first. Create it, ensure it meets the requirements, source it. Then ask Tnxman307 if he thinks it's ready for prime time. Then he can unlock, and help move if if it's ready (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.. thanks for your idea Bwilkins! I have created a draft at Urimai Kural as per your suggestion. So I hope the page now will be unlocked and saved. Balaji (Let's talk) 18:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meowy investigation

Did you read my evidence on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Meowy or did you just skim through it? The only connection between Wikiboer and Meowy is not interest in Armenia-Azerbaijan, but also their interest in relatively obscure topics such as Assyrians and their genocide. Moreover, shared interest in Armenia-Azerbaijan topics does not explain why both of the users vehemently insists on downplaying the Georgian origins of various Georgian institutions and sites.

As I can see, Meowy has had plenty of investigations on his name and I hope that you are not dismissing me just because you don't feel like doing another one. The apparent syndrome of impunity is probably what causes these users to be as combative as they are with me and others on various talk pages.--Krosenstern (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, those are not obscure topics (at least, not on Wikipedia). I've marked the case for close, not because I "don't feel like doing another one", but rather because I don't see enough evidence that these two accounts are operated by the same person to warrant an investigation. TNXMan 15:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure of how to handle suspected day-use socks

Hi Tnxman. I've only filed a couple of SPI reports, and feel pretty uncertain about what's required or even how to go about the process properly; the interface isn't easy to decipher, as you know. But more to the current point, I'm sure you know that apparent "throw-away accounts" that are used for just a day or two are ubiquitous in the Israel/Palestine topic area. Sean.hoyland and I, whose edits tend to support one side of the conflict, and AnkhMorpork, whose edits tend to fall on the opposing side, are all of the opinion that Top of the Tower (talk · contribs) is the latest example. The account's second edit was this revert of a much-contested "recent flare up" in the topic area; Sean suspects NoCal100 as the sockmaster.

Is this a sufficient basis for asking for a check? If not, I don't see how the topic area can avoid being overwhelmed by day-use and short-term-use and sleeper socks. A check would be appreciated in this specific case, of course, as well as more general guidance. What can we do when a new account shows up in the topic area, and jumps into the thick of the latest "flare up" or controversy article in that topic area, with reverts from the outset, for example? My experience with previous SPI reports has been that just saying, "this doesn't look like a new user; we think it might be a NoCal sock" gets shot down for lack of specificity. But when a few people are creating hundreds of socks, and using them for just 10 - 20 edits over a day or two, what chance is there for anyone to be more specific? How can one compile "behavioural evidence" based on so few edits?

Do we just have to throw up our hands when we see what looks like an instance of this strategy? Do we have to wait until the user has made his ten or twenty edits and moved on? Or is it permissible to ask for a check right away when a new account shows up and makes comments that indicate significant prior experience, for example, or performs reverts at controversial articles in his first few edits? Sorry to be so long-winded in asking, but the problem is so endemic to the topic area that I've thought seriously about just giving up on it, abandoning the topic area entirely. With 1rr restrictions in place on these articles, the effect of one's edits can easily be nullified by this short-term/day-use socking strategy. Trying to contribute to the topic area in a responsible way just seems futile if there's no effective way to respond to it.

Finally, I'll add that although I'm a fairly experienced user by now, I've been very reluctant to file SPIs, because some clerks and checkusers have been very free with off-the-cuff remarks to express an opinion that an SPI has been filed in bad faith, as an attempt to harass a POV opponent, and suchlike. That introduces quite a strong chilling effect, and clerks are never reprimanded for saying such things, even when they're very demonstrably wrong. It's my own opinion that socking is such a tremendous problem for the project that it's just really poor behaviour for anyone to take the least offence at being the subject of an SPI. My own response, the one time someone suggested I might be socking was a very polite, "If you feel you have grounds, please do file an SPI."

Sigh. Sorry to vent; the whole topic is just an extremely frustrating one to me. I've informed the "tower" account of my post here, btw... Any guidance you can offer on any of this will be most appreciated. Thanks, --OhioStandard (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Ohiostandard said. Special:Contributions/Ron_Cracker is likely to be another disposable sock. To get a glimpse of the tip of the iceberg, just the accounts that have been blocked as confirmed or suspected socks for one sockpuppeteer, NoCal, see User:Sean.hoyland/socks. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think a real solution would only allow editors after some time for ex. 500 edit and one year in the project.--Shrike (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, me too, something like that anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think calling editor a sock just because he reverted you, could be considered a personal attack.--Shrike (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that needs to change. Picking an editor at random in the topic area and calling them a sock probably has quite a high chance of being accurate by pure chance. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 11:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike has her facts wrong: The "Top of the Tower" account didn't revert any of my edits until after I'd posted to its talk with a link to our policy prohibiting multiple accounts. Btw, her comment here has reminded me of a curious exchange she had with an obvious sock, who was subsequently blocked as such. I've posted a query to her talk (link/snapshot) to ask about it. No doubt there's a perfectly inoccuous explanation; I'm sure she'll be glad to clear up any confusion there, on her talk. --OhioStandard (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ohio call this user a sock because of the revert that she doesn't agree with, this is personal attack or it was something else.Maybe she should clarify it for us.--Shrike (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a man, Shrike, so please mind your pronouns. I'm correct in my understanding that you're a woman, right? --Ohiostandard, 23:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
No, I called Top of the Tower a sock here. That is because my experience tells me that they are not only a sock, but they are likely to be a sock of NoCal100. You appear to be making a habit of standing between editors and socks. You have done it before. You were wrong. I let it pass. Don't do it again, please. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again if they are sock file a SPI.Throw accusations about other editors are personal attack.--Shrike (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Until new editors are allowed to revert on their first edit we must WP:AGF.--Shrike (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to your opinions. You might be surprised at how many socks are blocked without an SPI. There is a thin line between assuming good faith and playing or being dumb when it comes to obvious socks. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well ok,like I said earlier the solution is clear I think it should be done via AE Similar to restrictions of Nagorno-Karabakh.--Shrike (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sean, other than your tingling spidey senses, do you have any objective evidence that support your assertions that this is a sock of NoCal100. If so, do you not think it less disruptive if you would present this compelling evidence rather than accusing this user for no purpose? Ankh.Morpork 14:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to respond to questions you ask me about sockpuppetry. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me answer some of OhioStandard's general questions/points first. Filing SPIs can be tough if the sockmaster is creating throwaway accounts. It makes it harder to track behavioral clues and patterns. However, because we try to assume good faith, we can't investigate every new account that shows up. I wish I could offer some hard and fast guidelines of "assume good faith here, suspect socking there".

Secondly, if you feel that anyone working on an SPI (including myself) wasn't helpful, please let me know or post to WT:SPI. We do see cases where different editors on opposite sides of debates will file harassing/pointless SPIs, and yes, they do get frustrating. However, we're still here to help, so let us know if something's wrong. Finally, as the specific request, it's  Likely that Top of the Tower (talk · contribs) and I Wanna See The Real India! (talk · contribs) and Ron Cracker (talk · contribs) are the same. Since they are using multiple accounts to edit the same topic area, I've blocked them. All of the NoCal100 socks are  Stale, so I can't comment on a connection there. TNXMan 15:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about User:Forevertrue21 and user:Realityneeded?I know the probably stale but maybe you can say something about them?Thanks.--Shrike (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since those accounts haven't edited in months, I think we can let them lie. If they re-activate, let me know. TNXMan 15:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Burks

I am in the process of creating a new article for this recently deceased, and notable, bluesman. See [5] and [6]. However, an article in this same name was deleted by you - I have no problem with that. Previously you were meant to contact the deleting editor to ask permission to create a 'proper' article, but it seems the criteria has changed. I am unsure how to proceed. Do I now have to use another article name (eg. Michael Burks (musician)) ? Help !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected the article. Please read our guide to writing your first article for good advice on getting started. TNXMan 15:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks - a new article is now available at Michael Burks - if you have the time, interest or inclination. Cheers,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! TNXMan 15:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for sockpuppet investigation for Iaaasi

Hello Tnxman307,

I requested for a sockpuppet investigation for Iaaasi on 04 may, 2012, which is still open without having commented on it by any administrator. User:Jaro88slav of the suspected sockpuppet isn't blocked yet, and there is a new user ,User:MalusDacus111, who I think is a sockpuppet of Iaaasi's, for which I still can't ask for any investigation as even the older case is still open.--Nmate (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egg Centric

Hi Tnxman307,

Would you please take a look at this unblock request on Egg Centric's talk? They were blocked indef for socking but have stated their case which seems to be within bounds of policies. I'm not asking for you to review the block but instead to see whether checkuser should be applied here. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note there. TNXMan 15:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle c5

Hello Tnxman,

You ran the checks here, and now I see that there's another related case here. I'm inclined to think that they're the same person, but I don't know why the master in the second case wouldn't have shown up before. Unless they're unrelated, of course. If you wouldn't mind, please take a look at the second case when you get a chance and let me know if it's worth another check. Thanks! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Elmer's SPI. Cheers! TNXMan 20:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with abusive mod.

Hello. I'm the user called Grace Saunders. I'm banned but I'm trying to appeal against the ban as it's not fair. My main user name is 45g. Grace has no contributions.

Michaeldsuarez keeps on tagging IP pages with claims I'm a sock puppet when I'm just trying to get personal info removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:64.252.6.137

Michaeldsuarez basically has been harassing me with other well-known hackers / trolls from Encyclopedia Dramatica. Look at the history edits. Some are by him. In my opinion, he is not a real mod and only ever seems to edit on ED related pages on Wikipedia.

http://encyclopediadramatica[dot]se/Grace_Saunders

Should this continue, legal intervention may be necessary. But I'm not making threats. I'm trying to get this issue resolved in a way that legal action isn't needed.

The address for Wikipedia is on the who.is database.

Thank you.78.148.98.14 (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[7], [8], [9], [10] – "Grace Saunders" isn't your real name; it's a pseudonym derived from a video game character. It isn't "personal information". Your real name is in that ED article that you've linked to, and anyone can plainly see that that name isn't "Grace Saunders". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. And may I ask what's your "relationship" with ED and myself then? Do note I am very close to finding out who their host is as I've been in contact with the founder of the J. Evers blog and other companies, so don't you fear.78.148.98.14 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Socks appear again

Always try to add non exist party in List of Vietnamese political parties,Template:Vietnamese political parties and Democratic Progressive Party (disambiguation) event already be ban in vi and zh by doing so. Sorry I don't use to en wiki yet so I don't yet know where to put this so I already put this here if that wrong place please let me now where is right place. Sorry for my english skill.Tnt1984 (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My last case

I think its classic Cui bono but here is something interesting [[11]] its like he anticipated this.You don't feel that all this evidence is enough for duck test?--Shrike (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

are you out of your mind? i follow your user pages and talk pages and edits. just like now. anticipated my foot. you're becoming desperate.-- altetendekrabbe  20:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You again continue your personal attacks.Stop it!(Also that nice that you admitted that you hounding me)--Shrike (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no i am tracking your edits to build a case against you. don't worry, i will not get into edit war with you at all.-- altetendekrabbe  20:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And now he admits of WP:BATTLE nice.--Shrike (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you are tag-teaming with ankhmorpork and you know it.-- altetendekrabbe  20:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me if i'm wrong, but I you want a war fine by me as long as you do it on your own talk page. Don't mess up this gentleman's talk page. If any of you need support on this topic, I'm an expert at it (I used to have great wars with Users). Apologies to Tnxman307 and you guys if i'm wrong. 

19:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tnxman307&oldid=492908511"