MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 10d) to User talk:Tnxman307/Archive 22. |
96.236.125.170 (talk) →User:Panichappy1| definitely not me: new section |
||
Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
::The user is back again. Could you take a look? Thanks, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 15:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)</small> |
::The user is back again. Could you take a look? Thanks, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 15:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)</small> |
||
:::I've blocked some more proxies. Cheers. <font color="darkorange">[[User:Tnxman307|TN]]</font><b><font color="midnightblue"><big>[[User talk:Tnxman307|X]]</big></font></b><font color="red">[[Special:Contributions/Tnxman307|Man]]</font> 15:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC) |
:::I've blocked some more proxies. Cheers. <font color="darkorange">[[User:Tnxman307|TN]]</font><b><font color="midnightblue"><big>[[User talk:Tnxman307|X]]</big></font></b><font color="red">[[Special:Contributions/Tnxman307|Man]]</font> 15:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Panichappy1|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Tnxman307&page=User%3APanichappy1&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_review_log=1 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 [[Wikipedia:Revision deletion|policy]], see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=427681920&oldid=427681803 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/407 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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog?title=Special%3AAbuseLog&wpSearchUser=178.77.20.122&wpSearchFilter=407&wpSearchTitle=]. 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. --[[Special:Contributions/96.236.125.170|96.236.125.170]] ([[User talk:96.236.125.170|talk]]) 22:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:12, 8 May 2011
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.
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
Talkback
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)
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)
Looking for sockmaster
Hi,
would you happen to remember if you identified a sockmaster for the following group of editors:
- TheGodzillaHobo (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- MrBrightside2006 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Mr. Turtlebird (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- MarioAndLuigiFoEva (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- MakesPerfectSenseToMeOCTOBER2004 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- ConcreteMofo2004 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- AnthonyBourdainIsLupinThe3rd (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
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?
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)
A award!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Your best effort for fighting vandalism.Enjoy! Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 20:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
Request a rangeblock
Hi, the pondeepankar / konguboy sockmaster is now resorting to vandalism of user and user talk pages.[1]. He says he is going to go on "offensive mode" to target wikipedians. Can you block the 117.206.98.157/20 ip range. It is one of the IP ranges he uses and seems collateral damage will be less.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Has s/he used more than the one IP or is it just confined to the one IP that was blocked? I'm hesitant to implement a rangeblock until there's more evidence of abuse. Thank you for tracking this person, though. If more problems do occur, please let me know. TNXMan 11:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- He is back again.He uses multiple IP ranges - these are dynamic IPs belonging to Indian state ISP BSNL. I have used these connections before - the ips can be changed by switching the modem off and on. The first IP range is 117.206.98.157/20. Proof that this is a dynamic ip is that - he has used 117.206.96.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 117.206.100.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The second dynamic range he uses is 59.92.112.0/19. Today 59.92.106.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) vandalised multiple user pages by adding profanities and in the past he has used 59.92.118.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). So question about them being static IPs.
- He is now popping in every day to vandalise and taunt people reverting and cleaning up after him. Here he is taunting and defacing previously uninvolved editors - [2] and here. He uses two more ip ranges, but these two are the most used ones. --Sodabottle (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Another IP from the 117 range used by him today to vandalise user pages 117.206.102.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)--Sodabottle (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. My talk page got vandalised third time today by him. He used 59.96.28.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is another of his dynamic ip ranges. --Sodabottle (talk) 14:11, 4 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, [3]. 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)