User talk:Tnxman307
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
NYyankees51
Hey, I unblocked NYyankees51 (talk · contribs) on an extension of AGF on the conditions that he stick to that account (and only that account) and that he consent to regular CUs to make sure he's not taking the piss. Could you find the time to do a check at random intervals? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
- I'll do my best - my memory isn't the greatest in the world. I'll remove the timestamp from your sig so this doesn't archive. Now, what were we talking about? Waffles? TNXMan
- I appreciate it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Deepak Bajracharya
As an uninvolved observer it appears to me that the deletion of Deepak Bajracharya was a classic case of WP:BITE. User:Dpkbajra has recreated the article now under Deepak bajracharya, with improper capitalization. Speedy of the new article was contested, and I do agree with that decision – at least, sufficient notability is established that WP:CSD#A7 does not apply. If you want this article to be deleted you should bring it up to AfD but I ask you to move it back to the old article name with proper capitalization. Thanks, Nageh (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've moved the article. It's been improved since I saw it. The version I saw had no sources and did not say much beyond "Deepal Bajrachayra is a well-known singer". The only reference was to a personal website. TNXMan 12:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey. You listed Porshsigner there, but that's not a registered account. :/ — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Got it. Thanks! TNXMan 13:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, another question. Panzermanz (talk · contribs) was listed as being suspected, but that account didn't come up in your list. Are they unrelated? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
71.81.36.249 (talk · contribs) is in fact clearly Marburg72 (talk · contribs) who exercised the right to vanish about 3 years ago Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Marburg72. He's continued to edit however as tendentiously as ever. I'm in a dispute with him at Walam Olum (see the talk page) where 166.137.15.16 (talk · contribs) has mysteriously appeared to save him from a 3RR warning. I see I missed this last year [1] where another mysterious IP appeared on his talk page. This [2] may also be related. I'm not sure what to do about this if anything, but we clearly have someone who exercised RTV and reappeared and seems to have other IPs showing up at times when he most needs them. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- We can play some connect the dots, but there's not much more we can do technically, since Marburg78 is
Stale. Using this site as our guide, we can see the 71.. address and the 68.. address (from 2008) are both based in Louisiana. The two 166.. addresses are both Cingular/ATT mobile addresses. Based on your behavioral links above, I think it's safe to say they're the same person. I hope this helps. TNXMan 11:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- So what can I do about a 3RR warning? I'll warn both I guess. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Request
Hi,
if you have a moment, would you consider handling this request on my talk page? Since AUSC was asked to look into my use of CheckUser in a closely related matter, to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest I'd rather defer any related issues to other CUs.
Cheers, Amalthea 14:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Tnxman, will you lend me your ear? That SPI is way out there--too many names for me to comprehend (that is, comprehend why a person would want to do that, but that's neither here nor there). I understand that a bunch of them are NOT Jancurek, but they are Weeksasusual. So--they won't be blocked? I'm referring specifically to the ones I added (as related to Weeks, per the duck test). If they are not blocked for socking, it seems to me they can be blocked for being exclusively disruptive, no? Please help the new guy out here. Thanks, as always, Drmies (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- The ones you added all appear to be Jacurek (see my latest note at the bottom of the page). They can/should be blocked as block evading accounts. I hope this helps. TNXMan 15:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Strange new users
Hello I did a new user patrol and I noticed a flux of new users with very simmilar user page.Maybe its some bot creating them?Here is an example User:Aftonj1993 User:Sarah.Maretich User:Gaxtreme User:Tootalldk User:Bsapp7 And there are many more.--Shrike (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Are they part of a class? When I see similar edits like this, my first thought is that it's a CS class or other college class. Perhaps we could ask one of them? TNXMan 15:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
re: unjust 2 day Blocking
Dear TNXMan,
You recently blocked my account accusing me of abusing multiple accounts. and sighting someone called glovepupet. I have not got or had multiple accounts and do not know anyone called glovepupet and feel you accusations total unjust. When I was blocked I was limited to editing my Talk page and wrote you a message there which you failed to reply to highlighting the frivolousness of you actions- you also did not respond to my unblock request. Furthermore, when I issued a Unblock request it was successful but I was told by the admisistrator that they way you had blocked me was unpreventable. May I remind you that it is WP policy to assume good faith - WP:AGF. In addition It might be more civil if you contacted someone before you blocked them and gave them a chance to defend themselves. Also I think you should have long hard think about whether you are abusing your position in your indiscriminate blocking of me.
Best
Editmonkey EditMonkey (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear TNXMan,
I take it that by your lack of response you are admitting you were wrong to block me. It might have been more 'civil' if you had offered me an apology for you actions.
Best
EditMonkey. EditMonkey (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Missed block
Re[3]: The sock does not seem to have been blocked and is still editing. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I generally let the patrolling admins/clerks do the blocks on cases where I have run a checkuser- this allows for a second set of eyes and keeps me from being both judge and jury. You may want to ask HelloAnnyong or DeltaQuad to take a look. They're good admins and are experienced with SPI. I hope this helps. TNXMan 17:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
108.67.204.170
You blocked 108.67.204.170 for "Abusing multiple accounts". The user has been evading the block by asking other editors to edit on their behalf. I have explained that this is not acceptable, but thought you should know, as you know more about the background than I, not being a checkuser, can find out. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for catching this. I've left a warning on their talk page. TNXMan 19:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
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.
—SpacemanSpiff 16:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hello Tnxman, have you had a chance to look at this? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Similar choices of unblock reason
I tried to decline an unblock request at User talk:Rrjanbiah, but you edit-conflicted me. Your decline reason was "Not sure what I'm supposed to see, but what's not present is any convincing reason to unblock this account." Mine was "I don't know what that is supposed to mean, but I know that it does not address the reason for the block." Great minds think alike? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed! It's definitely one of the odder unblock requests I've seen lately. TNXMan 15:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Semi Protection for Telugu Language Article
Hello User talk:Malaikaran, is making disruptive edits to Telugu Language article. Please take action against that user and also can you put semi-protection on Telugu Language article? Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC).
- The user has been blocked. I have not semi-protected the page though, as most of the disruption seems to be coming from one blocked user. If more sockpuppets appear please let me know. TNXMan 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just an FYI Tnxman, I also blocked two more TrueDrravidian (talk · contribs) and Modelmightnight (talk · contribs). He's pretty much copped to these accounts in his unblock request at User talk:Kalarimaster, an off-shoot of which is a discussion at WP:AN. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sure Thanks. looks like Irimbgodal (talk · contribs) is sock puppet of User talk:Malaikaran.98.114.218.85 (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just an FYI Tnxman, I also blocked two more TrueDrravidian (talk · contribs) and Modelmightnight (talk · contribs). He's pretty much copped to these accounts in his unblock request at User talk:Kalarimaster, an off-shoot of which is a discussion at WP:AN. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)