User talk:Tnxman307/Archive 30

Saint Thomas Christians

Hi, thanks for page protecting this article. The last edit (not my own, I don't have the knowledge on this subject, but can tell sources from POV) before protect was effectively mild vandalism of sourced content by the uncommunicative IP. I would like advice on how to restore to Cuchullain and Robin Klein's consensus version. Presumably the template pp-full|small=yes must be copied into the next edit if restoring? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the template means that no one but admins can edit the page until the protection expires. I think it's best that this issue get sorted on the talk page before anyone's preferred version is restored. TNXMan 02:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahah. Thanks for explanation. I'm not sure if the IP will start communicating now, given that his version is on top, but until it expires it gives the others time to establish consensus. Good call. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: PumknPi sock block

While I cannot say I am surprised at this turn of events, I couldn't find an SPI investigation or CU request questioning the user's authenticity. Could you elaborate, or at least point to a link? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I backed into this one. User:WʊlfrəmCarbide was created a few days ago and fit TungstenCarbide's usual naming pattern (at least, when they want to be obvious). Further investigation turned up PumknPi. TNXMan 12:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice how the sockmaster actually numbered them. I knew there was something off, just not how he/she/it was off. Thanks for responding. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Willdude 132 & co.

Hello, would you mind looking into this and this? Like Syrthiss, I'm suspicious of a good-hand/bad-hand socking attempt coupled with fake "hacking" of his account. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually kind of believe their story. It looks like there was some editing from a educational institution, so I would not be shocked if an account was left logged in, then compromised, especially given they were editing constructively for a while. I think it may be worth unblocking the new account and giving him/her a second chance. TNXMan 15:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

MarcusMaximus0

Am I allowed to know if the IP and this user are the same person? As he has already said he will revert me on sight I need to know if he also uses the IP to edit war. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but checkusers do not generally disclose connections between IPs and usernames. As I said on the SPI page though, logging out to continue to edit war is not permitted. TNXMan 16:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philip126

Hey. I noticed that, in your check, you didn't mention Scholelied's connection one way or the other. Can you clarify? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of corporate user account (User:CorporateRelations)

Hi. I'm fairly sure that User:Editorukzn is a sockpuppet of User:CorporateRelations, and is an account created by the PR department of UKZN for the sole purpose of editing articles on Wikipedia to enhance the university's image. As I understand it, this is not allowed, and the account should most likely be blocked. -Kieran (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the block placed on CorporateRelations specifically encourages them to create a new username. This is often the case when a new account has a problematic username -we want them to contribute constructively, but with a username that fits our policy. If there are further issues with their edits, it would be best to discuss that with them directly. I hope this helps explain. TNXMan 01:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Celebration / Stubes99 / Bornder

Excuse me, but the editor himself admitted that the account Celebration1981 is his: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMatthias_Corvinus&action=historysubmit&diff=431703496&oldid=431678819 . How can you leave it unblocked? He edits the same articles from the same range, and HelloAnnyong agreed that "'m pretty sure that Celebration == Bornder" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsjfhsdfsdfmsdf (talk • contribs) 14:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the link you provided shows an IP that claims to be Celebration1981, not Bornder. Secondly, it was never proven Bornder was anyone, only conjectured. TNXMan 14:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The IP is from Stubes99's usual range and belongs to him, based on behavioral evidence (see the expression "romani-an chauvinist "). HelloAnnyong agreed that Bornder = Celebration1981, but he was not sure that Celebration1981 = Stubes99. My link proves that Stubes99 = Celebration1918 too. We have: "same area" and "similar UAs." + behavioral evidence (all of his articles were edited by others socks before: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) Dsjfhsdfsdfmsdf. Battle of Mohacs is even semi protected against him (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request Fnagaton

here - looks like CU block to me rather than proxy block, thus asking. Materialscientist (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Vectorwork history table

How is that different from the AutoCAD and Microstation tables? They are also "unsourced"!

Jwouellette (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Jeffrey Ouellette

You're right! I've removed them too. TNXMan 17:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request of 204.69.190.254

Two days ago, you blocked this user on the grounds that the IP was an open proxy. The user posted an unblock request disputing that, and I referred it to OPP. The check there found that it was indeed not an open proxy, just a shared IP. Another admin nevertheless denied the unblock based on the user's past conduct.

I'm a little troubled by this. Since the January 22 block expired, the user had not made any contributions, but was blocked again by you yesterday on a good-faith belief, ultimately found to be mistaken, that the account was an open proxy. The presumption by Madman was that that was a misclick from the pull-down list of block reasons, and he has amended it to {{anonblock}}, which he thought was what you had intended. Blocks, as we all know, are preventative not punitive, but in this case there was and now is nothing to prevent.

I am not unaware that this user's past conduct has not been exemplary, and that he is somewhat querulous in temperament. However, he is currently blocked for, IMO, no good reason.

If there's something I should know about this that I'm not aware of, please do not hesitate to bring it to my attention, publicly or privately as you may feel. Otherwise, I feel we should correct our mistake and lift the block, with the usual "go and sin no more" admonition. Any input you have is welcome. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've unblocked the IP. However, this IP should be very carefully monitored for abuse. There are also some suspicious logged in edits that I will monitor as well. If I've missed anything, please let me know. TNXMan 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for sorting this out; I was willing to change the block as it wasn't an open proxy, but I wasn't willing to unblock entirely because I presumed you knew something I didn't (especially re: logged-in edits). I missed the fact that the WP:AN discussions were a while ago. Cheers! — madman 18:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Proxy block on 38.100.14.250

Hi Tnxman, I noticed you blocked 38.100.14.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a month ago as an open proxy. I wondered how you came across the IP and decided it was a proxy? The IP was mentioned at COIN around the same time, and geolocate says that it is owned by Qorvis. Considering the edits they made, it's probably a good block regardless, but I'm curious! Cheers SmartSE (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ledenierhomme

Would it be possible for you to take a look at the following when you get a chance ? The IPs (from ASRETELECOM in Tehran) and the user look like they may be Ledenierhomme up to his usual tricks.

• Special:Contributions/188.34.9.201
• Special:Contributions/188.34.18.11
• Special:Contributions/I.am.gorgeous

Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I.am.gorgeous is  Inconclusive, but I did block Bashibashibash (talk · contribs). I've also placed a short rangeblock. I hope this helps. TNXMan 20:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but the IP hopping continues

• Special:Contributions/188.34.15.76
• Special:Contributions/188.34.55.240

Sean.hoyland - talk 12:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky

See my note there. JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied there. TNXMan 15:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/70.251.101.115

Thanks for fixing that. I'm not very good at filing sockpuppet investigations with IP address yet. Can do it with normal users but not IP address. So thank you for fixing it for me. :) Swifty*^talk_contribs 16:16, 7 February 2012 (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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Avi (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Block of User:Huayu-Huayu

Which other accounts has User:Huayu-Huayu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) used? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

They're all listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Huayu-Huayu. TNXMan 20:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

For a few days after you blocked Huayu-Huayu, a sequence of 203.145.92.xxx IPs took over his/her cause at Taiwan island group, its AFD (where one of them also voted) and related pages. Then 218.250.159.25 (talk · contribs) took over, but hasn't cast any votes in the discussions he/she has participated in. Kanguole 21:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That last one is almost certainly User:Instantnood - whereas the first user appears to be someone else. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The sound of one sock quacking

You blocked User:Negativecharge; could you take a look at User:Gravitoweak and his edits on Jimbo's talk page, among other places? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. I've blocked and tagged several accounts. TNXMan 16:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Block of Hoyle Casino Man (talk · contribs)

Hello, this user is requesting an unblock. You blocked them for sockpuppetry. Their explanation is that it's a school IP and he and his friends all signed up together. I'm reluctant to deny the unblock since the explanation is rather reasonable, but I wanted to see if you are aware of any context I might be missing. Thanks, --Chris (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

All of the accounts were created within ten minutes of each other on the same computer and the same IP address. Furthermore, it appears the IP used in association with the account creation is a residential IP block, not an educational institution. Finally, the last IP used by Hoyle (a school IP) was also used in the last month by Shakinglord (talk · contribs). Shakinglord's socking caused the IP to be blocked. I believe Hoyle is Shakinglord -s/he went home to create the accounts and then tried to use them at school. TNXMan 19:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the input. --Chris (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/P0PP4B34R732

The investigation was marked closed. Of the many personalities, who in darnation do I contact on problems they are doing. Nothing malicious, just errors. This is hard keeping tracking of the what/where of the personalities. Bgwhite (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, there is another sock of theirs. User:Meatsgains Bgwhite (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A new one just came on line. User:MilkStraw532 Bgwhite (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Nukeh" / "Doug youvan" sockpuppets

Hello Tnxman307, I do not know what triggered you in blocking User:KCBlackHole, User:LadyJosie and User:24.255.133.196, but it has its effects: commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Help on .en re-establishing editorial privileges. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nukeh. Regards, Crowsnest (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashermadan

Hello, Tnxman307. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashermadan.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regards, Scieberking (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

CU requested

Hi Tnxman, can you run the magic tool? I have a strong, strong suspicion that Sebastian80 (talk · contribs) is active again (remember this one?) as LAx33 (talk · contribs). I really hope I'm wrong. (Also, there's no SPI that I could find.) Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged. Cheers! TNXMan 18:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The fun never stops. I already has suspicions about Sebastian80 after I ran into Black mamba, promoted to GA with a horrible lead. (See their talk page.) Anyways, thank you so much. And is there an SPI page somewhere? Drmies (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, the names sound familiar, but I'm not sure if there's an existing SPi or not. I've blocked an IP in any case, that should slow them down (hopefully). TNXMan 18:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

So shall I just start one, for the record, and list VeronicaPR as the master? I hate to do something out of order here, since I have screwed up before and I'm always worried that HelloAnnyong will be mad at me. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to start one, at least for record keeping purposes. If you have questions as you go, just let me know. And no worries about HelloAnnyong -I can't imagine he would get upset about a misformatted case. TNXMan 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VeronicaPR. Tnxman, can you please categorize them appropriately? I am not always sure which template (blocked, suspected, confirmed, etc) to use. Tnx! Drmies (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the case. Now we have a place to keep track if more accounts appear. TNXMan 19:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Tnxman, you're the best. Cheers. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! TNXMan 19:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

User:판델라

Hallo, I spotted that you blocked this user today as "Abusing multiple accounts". They were on my watchlist because I created their user talk page after they created one of a set of Korean bio stubs which I raised today at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Poor_Korean_biographical_stubs_which_seem_to_come_from_a_model_or_template. (A lot of markup-heavy stubs created in the last few months, almost all by a new editor as their first contribution). I'm not sure whether your block arose from my ANI post, or whether the ANI post is of interest to you in whatever you're following up, but thought I'd best drop you a line to connect the two in case they aren't already connected. PamD 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Have now found several more of these editors blocked. If you are blocking all the creators of these stubs on the basis that they are all the same person, can I then use {{db-g5}} on any more stubs of the same type? What user should I cite, if so? PamD 17:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually saw your ANI post and did some investigating from there. I found and blocked several accounts, listed here:

Extended content

(del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Lagnaqar (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Poreth (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Jddbc (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Lausiz (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Gadppace (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Tcisfas (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Givnofen (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Difficure (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Irontried (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Riquardy (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Boomir (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Raqzraqz (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Spectakl (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Sapinab (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Gatefor (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Dagollus (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 판델라 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Leclera (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Ebsoullts (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Tarantius (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 10:02, 15 February 2012 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 森喪 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)

The edits are almost identical, following the pattern you identified. I don't think WP:CSD#G5 applies in this case though, as there is no ban being violated. If you have any question, please let me know. TNXMan 17:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If I spot any more I'll let you know. PamD 17:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied

Hi, I replied on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Idontknow#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments, I'm not sure if they don't get watched anymore after having the first post, not used the system before (I thought you were just meant to use the templates) - thanks for any help I asked a few questions there :) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Tnxman307,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and

Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's

Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we

teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community,

and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what

you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community

[[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_82#Learn_to_be_a_Wikipedia_Administrator_-

_New_class_at_MSU|HERE]], where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my

students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training,

motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one

of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of

communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)

• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will

never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.

• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an

interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.

• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics

review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have

been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak

with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I

will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your

name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be

more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma/Archive

While looking at some AFDs that needed closing, I came across what seems to me to be a slam-dunk case of WP:MEAT, only to discover just after applying a block that there had been an SPI and that you commented that you did not see any abuse. Halo laser plasma (talk · contribs) appears to exist solely to act as an advocate for Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk · contribs), so despite discovering the SPI and the conclusions reached there I'm not feeling real compelled to undo the block, thought I'd drop you a line and see where we go from here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I only skimmed through their contributions, so if there was vote-stacking going on, I apologize if I missed it. I think the block will be a good reminder that they need to stick to one account. TNXMan 19:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Allrighty, that works for me. Thanks for the quick reply. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do you hate Westford? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.68.26 (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakyathegreat

For these accounts, the ones with red talk pages are not yet blocked. Could you do so? Calabe1992 15:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It's usually (with a couple of exceptions) the SPI clerks who do the blocking. HelloAnnyong and DeltaQuad are two of the more active ones that you may be able to ping. TNXMan 16:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, neither seem to be online currently so I'll just wait for whoever shows up. Thanks. Calabe1992 16:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesus christ, one of the socks you just found in the Shakinglord SPI had posted an ANI thread about Shakinglord. Sort of what prompted me to investigate him again. Good lord. Calabe1992 18:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I saw the ANI thread, and I blocked Rapide with a reference to WP:BASC. I guess it's time to play whack-a-mole again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocking

Hi, Tnxman. I'm Annawantimes logged out. You may recall blocking me back in 2010, indefinitely. I deeply regret my actions, I am am coming to you sincerely. See my contributions on Wikia, namely on Avatar Wiki. If this isn't the correct place to contest this, I apologize. Could you direct me to the proper place if this isn't it? Thank you for your time, 50.82.193.242 (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

PoliticianTexas?

Hi, I know Checkusers can't directly connect IPs and named users, but in light of the recent CU you did on PoliticianTexas, would you please look at User:174.50.69.242 and, if appropriate, make a (range?) block? Thanks, LadyofShalott 03:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The contributions match up pretty well -I've blocked the IP. TNXMan 13:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe this will slow down his socking. I doubt it though. :/ LadyofShalott 16:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Another one: User:71.210.202.24? LadyofShalott 02:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Council of Women World Leaders

Hello, it has been brought to my attention that the Council's page is no longer up to date. I am not adding promotional material, merely making it as current as possible so Wikipedia can continue to be most reliable. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecb1996 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be adding promotional material copied directly from a council brochure. Please note that Wikipedia does not permit advertising. TNXMan 20:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A Mercy Killing?

I'm not sure what more concrete evidence is needed... so why is this case not marked for close? Like... yesterday? This case is so completely without merit that I am feeling Schadenfreude. America, Australia, Czech, Sweden... what the hell is this SPI about? Seriously, dude, smack this report with a cluebat before I do. If I have to further disprove a completely incorrect line of reasoning before this case is closed, SPI is in a serious state of cluelessness. Say it ain't so! Doc talk 04:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Freaking.. thanks! Doc talk 05:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

SPI case

You appear to be using a CU finding about the Oliveriki account from several months ago and another from over a year ago. Some of these accounts have come out clean after one check and then later found to be connected through a separate sock and several socks have popped up since then. The account looks very much like a sock and I am quite annoyed that you would close down the report based on those stale findings alone, even though CU is understood to not be the smoking gun on whether an account is not a sock.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the reasons I listed already, Oliveriki has made two (TWO) edits in the past three months and eight total edits since January 1 2011. In fact, I think they've had their name brought up at SPI more times than they have edits. Please don't bring this account up again at SPI unless something changes. TNXMan 19:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of edits is not a reason for ignoring the account. In fact, the last edit this account made (restoring a massive Xebulon edit) sparked off a great deal of disruptive edit-warring at the Nagorno-Karabakh article and the other notable edits were backing up Xebulon in an edit war. Obviously Oliveriki's few edits have been highly disruptive to a topic area under discretionary sanctions and these few edits tend to be connected with Xebulon. This is very much a quack situation and the disruption alone severe enough to merit action.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Devil, please be aware of WP:TROLL, WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Thanks. Winterbliss (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ping!

...in case you don't watch processed cases (I certainly don't). In summary, I couldn't get a positive hit on the proxy, and came to quite a different conclusion. I may have fudged the proxy check, so I'd be grateful if you could follow up at the investigation at your first convenience. Best, AGK [•] 14:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Replied there. TNXMan 15:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

New name

I've had an IP stalker now for 3 months who reverts most of my edits on sex-related articles. Is it okay if i create a new account exclusively for sex-related edits on pages which are not semi-protected? Pass a Method talk 20:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's OK by me, but I would email Arbcom with your new account name and a brief explanation of what's going on. Just make sure you read and understand WP:SOCK. TNXMan 20:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Is emailing arbcom a must? If so, can you give me a link to the Arbcom email please? Pass a Method talk 21:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's not a must, but just in case you get called a sock later, it's better to have disclosed to ArbCom, or someone you trust. (Again my recommendation is ArbCom, but whichever is best for you) And the email is arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org as noted on WP:ARBCOM. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Cleverbot

I apologise if my edit was seen as a website promo but could you please have notified me about my mistake and then changed it to reflect what i was stating after correcting the mistake e.g. deleting the website i mentioned only and not deleting the entire section? regards, Turbo₅₆₆ talk 15:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at fortheloveofbacon's talk page. ℱorƬheℒoveofℬacon ✉ • ✍ 02:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Evanston, Illinois

I don't understand your deletion of the three newspapers under "local media". I have no relationship to any of the papers but as a long time and active resident of Evanston, I can assure you that from the standpoint of a typical citizen of Evanston, the only newspaper on the original list that may not be notable is the one you left there. Very few people in the community outside Northwestern University read the Daily Northwestern. Accordingly, I have reversed your deletion. If you wish to make a case for your deletion, please take it to the talk page of the article before you take any further action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DS1953 (talk • contribs)

Enabling archiving. TNXMan 20:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

111.68.121.9 has been disabled by Tnxman307 on February 20, 2012

kindly respond to the email requests sent to you on 2012/2/24 and 2012/3/4, which remain unanswered. the IP address you believe to be an open proxy, is not an open proxy according to the assurances given by the ISP PT. Varnion Technology Semesta here in Jakarta. while fully supportive of the importance of wikipedia's blocking policy on open or anonymous proxies, in the interest of fairness and compliance with wikipedia's policies, it is requested that you review your initial assessment, or advise us what proof you would like to see for a review. thank you (Thamrin2 (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shez 15

Hello, there are two more suspected socks I've added there since you already made the check. It's pretty exhausting, because the number of fan-led edits on a single page and everything related to it gets increasingly big and hard to follow (and I'm excluding IPs, one of whom, again starts with "142", as mentioned on the SPI). Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Replied there. TNXMan 14:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue One - Recent news from the Teahouse

Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

Spring has sprung! Stop by the Teahouse for a cup of tea under the cherry blossoms.

• Metrics are out from week one. Week one showed that the need for Teahouse hosts to invite new editors to the Teahouse is urgent for this pilot period. It also showed that emailing new users invitations is a powerful tool, with new editors responding more to emails than to talk page templates. We also learned that the customized database reports created for the Teahouse have the highest return rate of participation by invitees. Check out the metrics here and see how you can help with inviting in our Invitation Guide.
• A refreshed "Your hosts" page encourages experienced Wikipedians to learn about the Teahouse and participate. With community input, the Teahouse has updated the Your hosts page which details the host roles within the Teahouse pilot and the importance that hosts play in providing a friendly, special experience not always found on other welcome/help spaces on Wikipedia. It also explains how Teahouse hosts are important regarding metrics reporting during this pilot. Are you an experienced editor who wants to help out? Take a look at the new page today and start learning about the hosts tasks and how you can participate!
• Introduce yourself and meet new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. New & experienced editors to Wikipedia can add a brief infobox about themselves and get to know one another with direct links to userpages. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, they'll surely be happy to feel the wikilove!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)