User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Does this look like our obsessive friend to you?

I wasn't able to discern if it was a proxy or not, but I just reverted some of the typical stylistic changes on Ayumi's article. Syrthiss (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

82.13.83.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Behaviourally similar, but I think different enough. Technically, I think not. See also 82.13.83.170 (talk · contribs). There's been plenty of other socks around though, as I'm sure you know. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, ok thx. Syrthiss (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Open proxy

Hi. I've run into a bit of a conflict with an IP at Rogue (vagrant), namely 199.85.205.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). It is flagged as using OP at Wikipedia:Open proxy detection at CA. This terminology is new to me, but it seems this is not a legitimate way to edit. Sorry if that sounds completely naive, or maybe I've gotten the wrong end of the stick. Can you please advise. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. See WP:PROXY. It's only really illegitimate if it's used to evade scrutiny or blocks etc (no sign of that here that I can see), though that won't stop the IPs getting blocked. That doesn't necessarily mean the user gets blocked. An edit war is an edit war, no matter how the other person is connecting to the site. I tend to agree with their last edit summary. Are you really editing to improve the article, or to keep up with your first edit to the article? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Further advice: add a reference. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I've no interest in edit warring nor in discussions through summaries, and reverted only because I could see no reason for the material not to be included, (my first revert was not of an edit of mine). I've tried to start a discussion at the TP, but no response. My main concern has been about trying to structure the content. As things stand, it may be more appropriate to merge with Vagrancy (people), but that's another issue. Advice noted. RashersTierney (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope Zzuuzz doesn't mind me responding here, but I just caught this while looking through RashersTierney's contributions list. I realize this IP is an open proxy, but I happen to agree with Zzuuzz when he says that is no reason for a block as long as the edits are helpful and constructive.

Anyway, the main reason why I came here was to question RashersTierney's real intentions (again, probably not the right place to do so, so I apologize). As Zzuuzz already found out, RashersTierney did nothing with that article but reverted edits to keep the previous, "flawed" version up for as long as possible, and he even went as far as to file a request to the administrators to semi-protect the article. RashersTierney's intention to do all this might not have been to instigate an edit war and "keep his right", but that is ultimately what happened.

You (RashersTierney) also mention that it would be appropriate to merge the article with another one on a similar subject. Yet while I was looking further through your list of contributions, I have noticed that you warned every single editor every time they reverted you that they are contributing to vandalism of that article. If you dedicated a mere quarter of the time that you have used to issue all those warnings, you could instead have made a helpful contribution, and do the suggested merger for yourself.

That is all I have to say on my behalf. Best to all. 199.85.205.114 (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, just to clarify, I did mention that it won't stop the IPs getting blocked, as the open proxies are probably already being used by some banned vandal to do some socking. That's different from a user block, but most won't appreciate the difference. That, and me being a bit busy is probably the only reason they haven't been blocked already. Editing from open proxies is not a good long term strategy. My advice to you is to use more constructive edit summaries and also to add a reference. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for sorting out those IP addresses that I reported at WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by IP user. Assuming that they will hop to another proxy at some point, is it best to just report them to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, or is there some means for me to check for an open proxy beforehand to avoid wasting folks time? --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:OP would be happy to deal with them, but it doesn't offer fastest response you'll have seen. As for preliminary checking, Google is your friend. Proxy IPs worth blocking usually tend to throw up quite distinctive search results. See also this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Guide to checking open proxies page was just what I was looking for. I've got port scanning tools that I've used in the past to check out security for clients, but as I'm in the UK, the law makes them practically unusable now. I'll just reconfigure the browser proxy settings on a spare machine and check for a suspect OP if that editor shows up in future. Thanks again. --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Proxy check

I see that you blocked 218.248.29.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that was used by a Use:Ravi22oct sockpuppet an open proxy. I'm not too familiar with the proxy checking going on with Wikipedia, so I was wondering if you can you check out 116.74.112.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), too? Same sockpuppet usage. I'm wondering if there are some open proxies involves. See the list of IPs at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ravi22oct for all of the IPs that I've tagged. Thanks! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look and reblocked two of them. I'm inclined to think 116.74.112.103 is a 'home' IP, assuming they're in India. I also refer you to my response to the thread above. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I will stop by WP:OP should I find any more, but it is good to know that this sockpuppet uses proxies. I had suspected they do with all of the IPs from different ISPs that they used, but it is good to have confirmation. Thanks again. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Air charter

I wasn't sure about the blog link. Thanks for double checking my edit! -- role^player 16:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember anonymous user 80.42.227.142, who was editing people's birth & death dates?

Currently active as 80.42.239.106, was active last month as 80.42.236.235; both have been pulling the same schtick with ancient Chinese dudes. --Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

80.42.239.106 (talk · contribs). Yep that looks like him. Some of the dates seem to match up with other fairly established edits on other language wikis, so it's a little difficult to identify these as vandalism. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's back again, operating via 80.42.229.169. Perhaps a range block of 80.42 is in order? --Skywatcher68 (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Anglican Church Grammar School

Hi Zzuuzz. Just a query on your recent removal of content from the Anglican Church Grammar School article on the basis that the non-guilty plea made the news non-notable. Surely whether the defendant has been proven innocent or not isn't too relevant to the subject matter? The issue was covered by several sources. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 10:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I left a link to WP:NOTNEWS (see #4). Coverage by several sources isn't really an indication of notability. Whether it says something about the school is more relevant, and in the grand scheme of things, with these findings of fact, I don't think it does. Unfounded allegations are made all the time here and there, but that doesn't make them worth repeating in an encyclopaedia article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Argh

You seem intelligent enough to realize why I'm going to have to revdel your recent post to AN/I commenting on my deletion rationales.

Because I'm going to have to revdel your recent post to AN/I commenting on my deletion rationales.

Think about it, okay? This is precisely the sort of stuff that should not be pointed out. DS (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Gone but not forgotten hopefully. You should probably also revdelete back to the first response to the thread. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

David Howell (chess player)

Just to say thanks for a speedy response even if I didn't follow normal procedure! JRPG (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't sure if or where you were going to go next, so I thought I'd just get it out the way first. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Need assistance

I would appreciate it if you could take a quick look into Itinerant article's history, and put on full-protection for a few months or more.

After recent anonymous-IP disruption and temporary protection on 22 November, a long-term user is now reverting the article to a 3 months old revision that is much worse. He also removed all attempts I've made to stop from his talk page. General Hindsight (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind this hoaxer. This is a just a continuation of disruption from the proxy IPs at 'Open proxy' above. They taken to following me around the project since I filed an SPI. Please regard him/her/them accordingly. RashersTierney (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? I am following you around? I cannot even make a single edit anymore without having you on my back ever since I first reverted your disruption on 'Republic of Ireland', and later on 'Itinerant': [1] [2]. You have made every effort to keep this article from being protected so you could continue disrupting it. That is why you are here, not because of those IPs who are long-blocked. General Hindsight (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

General, be careful not to follow Rashers around. You know what I'm talking about. Rashers, these pages aren't exactly being trashed. I would be more interested to see your objections to the content. As for the current matter, see WP:EW, WP:DR, and that part of WP:NPA where it says to comment on the content. The current article is an improvement, but both versions are frankly in need of work. As a general principle I won't fully protect an article when one of the warring parties has requested it. You need to sort out your differences, not lock your preferred reversion in place. A talk page is the best place to do that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above, I don't know what you are talking about, but that is beside the point. I do not care about the article on a personal level; I was rather trying to avoid disruption when Rashers started reverting it to a dated revision that is in a much worse condition. If you look at my contributions, you will see that Rashers is far from the only user here that I have reverted and issued warnings, but he is the only one at the moment who discarded those warnings and continued reverting. If you don't care for the article either, that is fine. I just thought you would want to prevent disorder. My mistake. General Hindsight (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest detailing an explanation on the article's talk page. As I mentioned I consider the current version an improvement, and I am only really interested in improved content, as we all should be. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What detailing is needed? You said it yourself: the current version is an improvement. That was my point from the beginning: to stop (first anonymous, now long time) users from disrupting it. Administrators take care of that, or am I missing something? Once again, I do not care for the content, as long as it is compliant with Wikipedia (the current version seems more like that). I am trying to keep it improved, not trashed. That is why I asked for your assistance. General Hindsight (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more interested to hear from Rashers at this point, but if you explain how it's an improvement on the article's talk page, what you're trying to do, what else could be added, etc, then burden shifts indisputably onto whoever reverts you to provide justification for reverting. You overestimate administrators - they are here to tell everyone to sort it out themselves. Disputes are resolved through civil discussion on talk pages; not edit summaries, not template warnings, and not through blocks or protection either. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that so? Then would you mind telling me why administrators block users who continue causing disruption? Or if that doesn't help, why do they protect pages (you do both of these things on a daily basis)? Or maybe you can explain why an administrator deleted a day's work of legitimate editing from Cabinet Secretary (India)? I would say it is you who overestimates administrators. General Hindsight (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Those revisions were apparently deleted because they were copypasted from teh internet. Dispute resolution is really a job for the editors, the community, outside opinions, people without the banstick. When people don't listen to what others repeatedly tell them, that's when the admins should turn up to try to enforce what the others have been saying. We could debate the role of admins all day, but I've explained the best way forward. I am still waiting to hear from Rashers, who no doubt will see this discussion again. BTW as a courtesy, you've been mentioned here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well technically, everything is pasted from the internet or elsewhere, concepts are rarely developed anymore, especially not on Wikipedia where original research is not allowed, but that is not the point here. My point was that administrators do pretty much what they want to do, as do you. As for my mention on Rashers link I have clicked on it before, as if that's some kind of proof that I am stalking him or that I am some other user's that I've never heard of sock. THIS is coming from the same guy who accused me of harassment and following him around. From the looks of it, he's been going from one end of the internet to another just to find some vague crosspoints of that user Lorielpid and all his/her supposed socks, which naturally included me because I dared to revert thy holiness RashersTierney who shalt not be reverted without consequences. That is all very interesting and amusing, and I bet Rashers would be the first in line to claim 9/11 was an inside job. From my standpoint, I consider this matter closed. I have moved on the moment you've indicated that you don't want to get involved in your first response. I have put that article on my watch list and if those disruptions occur again, I will do my best to revert them and keep the better revision up, and you do what you do best. Have a nice day. General Hindsight (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Q.E.D. RashersTierney (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Greg James (DJ)

Hi, I noticed that you added semi protection to the article Greg James (DJ) for BLP issues sounding un-sourced info about his personal life. I have just reverted some more edits to that effect, do you think Pending changes would work better for this article? Pol430 talk to me 20:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I did think that just after I'd semi'd it, and I'll adjust that now. Note that the information was referenced[3], but the edits surrounding it are what triggered the protection. Just to be clear, I've no objections if it goes back dated and referenced, then nor am I bothered if it stays out either. But there's a little too much interest in the section for my liking, not to mention the vandalism. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:OP ready to be cleaned out?

Hi Zzuuzz. Many cases appear ready to be closed, one way or the other. Jayron32 just posted at AN that there was a backlog at OP. I would be willing to do some blocks on cases that appear likely proxies to me, but leave them to be formally closed by someone with more expertise. In some cases it seems that you've basically decided, but haven't formally closed them. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Be my guest if so inclined. I probably won't get around to it for a few weeks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Proxy check

Hey Zzuuzz. Could you please check if the following are OPs: 124.115.214.202 (talk · contribs) and 166.111.120.63 (talk · contribs)? Elockid ^(Talk) 15:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)124.115.214.202 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed open proxy on port 80.. 166.111.120.63 (talk · contribs) is also confirmed as an open proxy on port 80. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Incorrect. They are both running web services, which is why port 80 is open. It is wise to actually check the reason for a port being open first. However, because they are running terminal services and a number of other services, they can be used as proxies anyway. Just not from port 80. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm afraid you're not seeing the whole picture. They are running a misconfigured webserver on port 80. Change your browser settings to use those IPs on port 80 as a proxy if you don't believe me. The webserver responds to GET requests for any webpage, not just the pages that it hosts. I would have used it to leave a message on wikipedia, but both accounts are blocked. I checked myself and was able to browse the internet as those IPs and verified using whatismyip.com. They are both  Confirmed open proxies. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Sociology Newsletter: III (December 2010)

Sociology Project • News • December 2010
Spreading the meme since August 2006
The Sociology WikiProject third newsletter is out! According to our April mini-census, we have 15 active members, 6 semi-active ones and 45 inactive. Out of those, 4 active, 3 semi-active and 1 inactive members have added themselves to corresponding categories since the mini-census. The next one is planned, roughly, for sometime next year. The membership list has been kept since 2004. On that note, nobody has ever studied WikiProjects from the sociological perspective... if you are interesting in researching Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Research and wiki-research-l listerv. Moving from research to teaching, did you know that many teachers and instructors are teaching classes with Wikipedia? This idea is getting support from the Wikimedia Foundation, and some really useful tools have been created recently. I have experience with that, having taught several undergad classes, so feel free to ask me questions on that! And as long as I am talking about professional issues, if any of you is going to any sociological conferences, do post that to our project - perhaps other members are going there too? In other news: the a automated to do listing reported in the April issue went down shortly afterwards, but seems to be on the path to reactivation. We still have an active tag and assess project, and comparing the numbers to the April report, we have identified about 350 more sociology-related articles (from 1,800 to 2,150) and assessed about 100 (from 1,300 to 1,400). We now have a listing of most popular sociology-related pages. It is updated on the 1st of every month, starting with August, and reports which of our sociology-tagged articles are most frequently read. Of course, GIGO holds true, so after looking at it right now and trying to determine what is our most popular article, my first action was to shake my head and remove Criminal Minds (which, perhaps not too surprisingly, outranks all sociology articles in period tested). Second item I noticed it this month's Industrial Revolution, beating Criminal Minds, that moved from close to 30th position in August/September, to 9th in October and 2nd in November. If you'd like to discuss this or any other trends, please visit WT:SOCIOLOGY! Finally, with the reactivation of Article Alerts, we are getting our own here. Bookmark that page so you can keep track of sociology related deletion debates, move debates, good and feature article discussions, and more. Our first task force (Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology/Social movements task force) was created (1 June 2010). If you have basic or better graphic skills, our projects needs a dedicated barnstar (award) (currently the closest we can get is the Society Barnstar. As always, I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions.
Authored by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC) You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a recipient of WikiProject Sociology Newsletter (Opt-out).

Please block these two proxies

• 98.204.74.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This is a proxy opened on port 8085.
• 74.112.4.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This is a proxy opened on port 3128.

• 98.204.74.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Why is this proxy not blocked?

Semi-protection

Three months ago you kindly offered to apply semi-protection to the Grim Sleeper article. Thankfully that seems to have calmed down now. But could you possibly apply it to the Gary Ridgway article. The remains of a possible victim were found a couple of weeks ago and the page has since got out of hand. There have been repetitive but good faith edits which I have no problem with. But editor 72.208.228.144 was engaging in pure vandalism, and now editor 209.21.106.19 has launched what I can only think is a personal campaign against me. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Another open proxy?

83.99.211.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) looks like the recent wave hitting TFA. Favonian (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Never mind. MaterialScientist was way ahead of me. Favonian (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you know why AIV bot broke?

At WP:AN you state that this edit probably broke the bot. I agree that it looks like it did but having looked at the source code I can't for the life of me work out why it broke. This is bugging me! Rather than wasting any more time on it I was wondering if you knew why it caused a problem. Dpmuk (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I did wonder whether it was this typo. More generally, it almost always stops removing reports after someone changes the header - typically by adding the backlog tag. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Filter

Sorry to bother, but, could you please go to Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports#137.122.203.217 and answer? I have no knowledge of what this filter is doing or why. —Soap— 15:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

urgent protection

Lad, a dog needs it urgently: that vandal is relogging with a new IP as quickly as he is blocked Kevin McE (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm on it, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

thank you for your help

Just a quick note to say thanks for your quick response to my recent request for semi-protection. Not quite as long as I wanted, but some of the vandalism is, admittedly, quite amusing, and, as you say, next time the protection might be a lot longer. Thanks again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Verified User?

Hi zzuuzz,

Do you think I've matured enough that I can be added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users. If so, could you please add me to that list when you get a chance? Cheers, Sailsbystars (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Sailsbystars. You're doing good, though I'm not too convinced by this. I'll tell you the key criteria I'm looking for - to know when you don't know, and to know when you know. Of course it would be remiss of me if I didn't pose you a little realistic challenge, requesting as much rationale and proof as you can provide where relevant:

74.86.14.143 · talk · contribs · block · log · stalk · Robtex · whois · Google · ipcheck · HTTP · geo · rangeblocks · spur · shodan

213.125.68.74 · talk · contribs · block · log · stalk · Robtex · whois · Google · ipcheck · HTTP · geo · rangeblocks · spur · shodan

69.22.172.166 · talk · contribs · block · log · stalk · Robtex · whois · Google · ipcheck · HTTP · geo · rangeblocks · spur · shodan

63.151.184.214 · talk · contribs · block · log · stalk · Robtex · whois · Google · ipcheck · HTTP · geo · rangeblocks · spur · shodan

212.34.145.120 · talk · contribs · block · log · stalk · Robtex · whois · Google · ipcheck · HTTP · geo · rangeblocks · spur · shodan

78.129.143.129 · talk · contribs · block · log · stalk · Robtex · whois · Google · ipcheck · HTTP · geo · rangeblocks · spur · shodan

Six OK? You can take your time. So, proxy, notaproxy, or inconclusive? Block or no block? and if you were to be asked about blocking them, what kind of block length would you recommend?

oh and let's suppose

91.83.40.187 · talk · contribs · block · log · stalk · Robtex · whois · Google · ipcheck · HTTP · geo · rangeblocks · spur · shodan

is requesting unblock - more precisely a registered user has been hit by the block and requests that the IP is unblocked. What do you say? :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• 213.125.68.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Novell Groupwise server. Seems to offer closed proxy type services (i.e. logged in users can browse the web). No open proxy ports. 5989 is open but not proxy, 443 is server management. 80 is normal server. In some spam blacklists, but not proxy blacklists. Looks like a mail server with some compromised accounts, but not an open proxy. Weird open ports 9009-11 and in 55000 range. Notaproxy as it's basically a work gateway and not accessible to the general public. Since it's not a proxy and committed relatively minor vandalism, there is no grounds for a block.
• 91.83.40.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Grant unblock While it was definitely a proxy at one point, evidence such as this [4] and an actual personal check indicate that the proxy is no longer available. It appears to be a static address belonging to a legitimate company (a Hungarian airline), so it is unlikely that the proxy has jumped IPs and more likely that a sysadmin fixed the problem.

Two for now. :) I'll probably have time for the rest tomorrow. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Double check? Remember Google is your friend (so is hash.es for that matter). I believe you're absolutely right on the second one, apart from one point, a matter of policy or common sense more than anything else. It seems the sysadmin has indeed fixed it (and possibly changed the password), but why on earth would someone be editing from a dedicated Hungarian airline web server? I would not grant unblock (I'd be very surprised to see any unblock request in fact), but would wonder why the editor is proxying through a web server. At a stretch, with a plausible explanation, it would probably be a case for IPBE rather than an unblock. This is mostly the case for all proxying web servers. As an esteemed colleague once put it - nobody should be editing from there. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be mixed feeling about whether webservers can edit amongst the admins though. I personally don't think they should ever be editting WP, but they are in somewhat of a grey area. Also, I found what you are talking about for 213.125.68.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The actual source proxy is 213.125.68.75:80 as listed on hash.es (and actually it proxies from itself as well). Oddly enough, it proxies most websites(e.g. cnn.com, elpais.es), but NOT whatismyip.com or en.wikipedia.org (it redirects to a dutch webmail), which is what threw me off, since those are the standard go-to test websites for obvious reasons. open proxy block for six months, since for the reasons I outlined in my previous rationale, it could eventually be a source of legitimate edits once their sysadmin figures out why their bandwidth bill is so high. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• 74.86.14.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Inconclusive. It is listed on several lists of proxies as an elite web proxy on port 80, but the most recent of those reports is 4 months old and it does not currently seem to proxy on port 80 either as a web or http proxy. However, it looks like a spam website at a hosting provider overrun with other dubious websites (phishing, spam, etc). Therefore the range should be blocked if it isn't already as there is likely a proxy somewhere on the range that is shifting around.
• 69.22.172.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - inconclusive Doesn't show up in any proxy or other blacklists. port 80 does not proxy (403/forbidden), but is open. Closed on 3128, 8080. very little whois data available. Combined with the IP though, it does appear highly suspicious.
• 63.151.184.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - open proxy This one also looks like it might be a former proxy [5] as it is in many blacklists as an open proxy on 8085, but doesn't proxy currently (maybe too busy right now? or ISP filtering?). However, due to editing pattern (and the fact that 8085 remains open), it should be blocked for 3 months as a suspected open proxy (it appears to be on a dynamic range, hence a shortish block).
• 212.34.145.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) open proxy confirmed Web proxy: [6]. Block for a year or two.
• 78.129.143.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Not an open proxy This is one of several gateway servers for a web filtering service for companies and schools [7]. The high incidence of vandalism edits is due to the fact that it's multiple schools and organizations coming through the same gateway. The proxy ports on the server (80,8080) give an error that I need to install the software if I try to use it as an open proxy.

And that's a wrap. How did I do? Sailsbystars (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond a bit now, but get back to you more later (probably tomorrow). 74.86/16 is to my knowledge my only 10 year block[8], and it's one I been asked a few times about, but have no intention of ever lifting. The range is a hive of loose boxes. The second and third ones pass the behavioural duck test with flying colours (I don't currently have the technical details to hand) and the third one is indeed likely short-lived. Of course the fourth one is right. So you would recommend unblocking (or perhaps softblocking) the last one? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

On the first one, I understand [9] and support the reason for the long rangeblock. "Wretched hive of scum and villany" seems an apt description of that hosting provider. On the two 2011 egypt protest vandals, they both clearly pass the duck test, but 63.151 is quacking much louder than 69.22, which is why I labeled the former as op, and 69.22 as inconclusive. On the last one, I would go for a straight up unblock. Treat it like any other school ip with escalating blocks for continued vandalism. Softblocking would probably eliminate the vandalism, but that's not allowed long-term for a school (or corporate) IP. Sailsbystars (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adding me to the list, and I appreciate the distinction. For this project there are both many right answers and many wrong answers and degrees of both. I know enough to at least avoid most of the wrong answers, but I still have plenty more to learn. However, the way I figure it, the more people we have active at WP:OP, the better. Sailsbystars (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for putting protection on the Valparaiso High School article. I don't know if the last revision I put it back to, and by the looks of it you subsequently put back to, is the best one, but it will do for now. Thanks again.

68.52.61.109 (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for assistance

Thanks, Zzuuzz for defending my talk page for me during the vandalism war that ensued there. Thanks again. Aaaccc (talk), 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha

One of the worst? Give it a rest. I realised afterwards that it was changed from Tottenham, but people saying 'Athletico' is incredibly irritating to Atleti fans and shows a very poor understanding of the Spanish language. Tone it down? Think there are many more concerning matters to address mate, you're taking this a little too seriously -- 82.46.46.194 ^(talk) 17:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I dare you to repeat what you said about shooting editors in the face at the admin's noticeboard. You'll see what I mean. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, and, you dare me? Not even sure what the Admin's Noticeboard is but I would happily repeat it, this is the internet ffs, I couldn't care less what happens. -- 82.46.46.194 ^(talk) 22:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Old Wykehamists, Old Etonians, etc. to become "Alumni of... "?

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 10#Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom. Moonraker2 (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Proxy blocking

Good call, but in the future, could you please tag the talk pages of blocked proxies with {{blockedproxy}}? Thanks -- Avi (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Avi. I generally won't unless it's going to serve a purpose. For that template the only purpose is to put it in CAT:OP for rechecking. Have you seen that category? I prefer to make accurate block timings instead, so there's no need to worry about checking for an unblock, or removing the tag when the block expires. That template was designed when indef when standard, and that pink blocked box didn't appear in the contribs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

AN Thread

You are mentioned in this AN thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Banbridge Academy PC

Please reconsider use of Pending Changes on Banbridge Academy, given the ongoing RfC on use of PC, and the notice regarding its use, and...well, the fact that there is no consensus for using it, beyond a trial period of 2 months which was from June 2010. Please see WP:PCRFC and feel free to comment there.  Chzz  ►  23:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I am following the RfC and the protection policy closely, and have already attempted to correct some of the misinformation being put about. You probably aren't aware that this article contained a gross BLP violation for over a week, and would have likely contained another that was missed by the bots. It's obvious that no one is watching that article, and no one is reading it, until that teacher happens to come across it that is. Given the potential for constructive edits I consider PC to be more appropriate than locking out new editors. You are welcome to have another admin take responsibility for it at RFPP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand your view. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. The RfC trundles onwards, and we'll see where we end up! Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfreezing "Scott Walker" page?

Hi zzuuzz,

I'm a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Many people in the state, and increasingly the nation, are following the rapid development of Governor Scott Walker's budget repair bill, SB11. Reporting on this issue has been very uneven across the news media, and I think it would be good for interested people to be able to inform themselves about this issue on Wikipedia. I noticed that you froze editing of this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Walker_(politician)

Would you consider unfreezing it to allow people to learn the details of this evolving situation via Wikipedia?

Thanks, Wlevans (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC) wlevans

Hello. Unfortunately this article has been subject to vandalism and persistent edits from people who can't leave their politics at the door. And that's even before he did whatever he recently did. A certain amount of protection is probably still necessary at this time to maintain a neutral encyclopaedic article and prevent libel. I'll keep it under review. New and unregistered editors can make suggestions on the article's talk page, or simply wait four days after registration and make a few edits in the meantime. I have also explicitly granted you the ability to edit the article directly without the wait, since you asked nicely. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:V first. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Miscellany for discussion and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Thank you for reversing the move of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Would you indefinitely move protect Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion and Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion to prevent further inappropriate or undiscussed moves of these pages? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

MFD

I have reverted my closure of the rm per your move revert. Japanese knotweed (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not objecting to the move as such, but it needs a bit more thought and time for comments. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, all the subpages were still "for deletion", not "for discussion" so obviously it hadn't been completed. Japanese knotweed (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The WITF wants you

The World Intelligence Task Force would like to recruit you as an agent. If you accept, comment under the pending section on the project page. It is a relatively new task force and we need new members right away so if you are interested please don't be shy. At this moment in time we only have three members. If you want more information, please go to the project page.

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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

JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

for watching out for my abode.  :) The Interior (Talk) 08:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your VERY fast action protecting my user page! --Crusio (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

AIV

Thanks very much, that helps a lot. Just for clarification, if the user had had a good history and there was no reason to suspect a pattern of vandalism, but nevertheless had been given an only warning for something minor and didn't really deserve a block, what would be the best course of action? Report it at AIV anyway, give the user a level 2 or 3 template, or something else? -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Bugging them with a less severe warning is often very appropriate if the first one is out of context. The point is to get them to stop, and that's one of the ways to do it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thanks very much for your time. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 14:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Knott Hall (University of Notre Dame)

Hi, since you're watching Knott Hall, do you think the entire history section (added on the 9th) is a copyvio of http://www.nd.edu/~knott/knott_history.html and should be removed? 174.109.196.89 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. It certainly looks like it, unless someone clarifies the copyright status quickly. See also this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue with Zahm Hall appears to be shared with many of the halls listed at List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame - and as you say on the talk page, it's not as clear as to who is copying who given the age of the edits. 174.109.196.89 (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing the blockedproxy template

It's been suggested that the open proxy block template be made more user-friendly. I thought I would ping you so you can comment on discussion. It stems from an incident that can be found discussed at User talk:EraserGirl#Unblock, WP:Administrator's Noticeboard#need unblock of valued editor, and WP:OP where it looks like (at least to me) an editor got a nasty virus on their box but didn't understand what was going on. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Need assistance with a Company page

Hello,

I have been trying to reach the guys who blocked the Nimbuzz page for a year now, and I got no reply.I am contacting you because I see you have unlocked a few pages so maybe you can help/guide me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/nimbuzz

Not sure where to go and who to contact, when I hit the wall of "Admin Silence".

I would appreciate if you can unblock it, or let me know what to do. Happy to answer any questions you might have.

I really hope you can help me out,

Andi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.79.224.62 (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I notice the article has been deleted a few times - thrice because it looked like advertising (CSD#G11) (perhaps inaccurately), and twice because it failed to "indicate the importance or significance of the subject" (CSD#A7). Are you here to advertise it? Anyway, the answer to both of these reasons is pretty much the same - to include references from third party reliable sources - the more the better. Looking through some of the deleted versions, I can't see any independent sources being used. Some of what I can find on the web indicates that this company may pass the WP:CORP or WP:WEB inclusion criteria. But it needs references in order to do that. What next? I would say draft an article in a sandbox (easier if you make an account), with as many independent sources as you can find, with as many interesting or impressive facts as these sources mention, then get some feedback from experienced editors, then when ready, and only when it's ready, request unprotection from an admin. You can also take it through WP:DRV and WP:RFUP when it's ready. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks a lot for the advice. I will try to do that! I appreciate the you took time to reply.

Andi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.79.224.62 (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

proxy check? re Fayenatic london

Hi zzuuzz. Any chance you could check into 95.131.110.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s proxy block? Looks like Fayenatic london (talk · contribs · count) has been caught by it, and says that they are informed that it is a proxy but not open. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is indeed a closed proxy now, although it might have been misconfigured earlier (or rather, a client might have been misconfigured). It looks to me like a corporate firewall/url filtering service. I would change the block to an anonblock or unblock for now. Substantial amount of vandalism, but since it's basically similar to a school-ip, future lengthy blocks should be anon-blocks. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If its not open now, I see no reason to not go ahead with a full unblock. We can always reblock anon only if needed from IP vandalism. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem! For future reference, requests such as this one can be left over at WP:OP in the unblock section, which is stalked by several knowledgeable users and exists for exactly this sort of thing. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Heheh I know about OP. I just usually hit up zzuuzz first if I've seen him editing. I don't know if he prefers I not do that. Syrthiss (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's fine. You'll often get a quicker response here - useful for unblock requests. On initial review I concur with Sailsbystars, BTW. The proxy may have moved to another IP, but in any case a Messagelabs IP probably won't stay open for long. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 13:56, 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) 19:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That was weird

Did you notice what all the pages the sock puppet user:AnAnswerNowIsAllINeed sabotaged had in common? They were all pages I started. I guess he's targeting my edits now becuase I pissed him off. Mathewignash (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

More that they were Transformers articles I would have thought. There's a couple of banned users who go around doing that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No, one was a thriller movie called Voodoo Moon, and it was started by me. I write a lot of TF articles, but every article he sabotaged was one I started. I think he was sabotaging articles by going down my contributions list. Mathewignash (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point, though they're probably related. They were using an open proxy so we may never know (or care) who they were. However keep an eye out in the future. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

He's back as user:Robot With A Mind Of Its Own now and he's nominating all those same articles for deletion. Shouldn't there be a waiting period from joining as a Wikipedia editor and being able to nominate things for deletion 5 minutes later? Mathewignash (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Trollheim

The:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_abominable_Wiki_troll_Jr
and the:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_abominable_Wiki_troll_Sr
are both derived from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_abominable_Wiki_troll
so please mark both Jr and Sr as socks. 83.22.143.39 (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. However I don't see the point. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I see point in exposing master-puppet relation regarding to this vandal.83.22.143.39 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Please describe those benefits. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Benefits are that indication of common user identity is exposed when tracking future vandalisms of User:The_abominable_Wiki_troll, and then evidence is not scattered when is needed. 83.22.143.39 (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Evidence is not required. If they're a troll or abusing multiple accounts then they'll be blocked as these accounts were. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So at least it is needed to have both Jr and Sr listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_The_abominable_Wiki_troll among rest of his socks. 83.22.143.39 (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

West Kingsdown

This diff is still showing as viewable. I tried to RD6 it, but got a message that it had already been done. Maybe you'd take a second look? Can't have that sort of stuff hanging about, can we? Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Well, I had decided to leave that edit, as outside of CFRD. I personally don't see the harm in it (in the history). The other two edits are an entirely different matter. But still, it seems to me that that edit is technically deletable. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sevenoaks District Council are a corporate body. They are entitled to protection againt libels as is any living person. I don't know why I can't delete it, but the system won't let me despite having the tools to do so. Would you do it for me please? Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As before, I don't see any libel there. However I've now deleted it nominally under that reason. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User ISerovian

Hi Zzuuzz, I wonder whether a WP:SPA and a WP:SOCK, ISerovian (talk · contribs), was someone using a proxy service and he stopped editing because he was rangeblocked. I am asking because I have a strong suspicion that I know who is really behind recent sockpuppetry at Occupation of the Baltic states, and am collecting evidence for another SPI. (Igny (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC))

Hello. This user hasn't edited in a year. It's unlikely a range block would be responsible entirely for that. And yes it does quack like a duck, and no I have no idea who it is or whether they were on a proxy. A checkuser is unlikely to be fruitful for that user. My money is on Marknutley for the sockpuppetry BTW. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. My money is on another guy. ISerovian was used when marknutley was not yet blocked, so he did not have motivation to use a SOCK at that time. Someone else used ISerovian either to just skew consensus at an RM or, as I suspect, to avoid an editing restriction. If I knew for sure that ISerovian was a proxy, that would be enough for a SPI followed by an AE. (Igny (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

I was talking about the recent sockpuppetry. Like I say it's probably too late to prove anything about what IPs ISerovian was using, and I'm not familiar with the full range of suspects as you are, but there's little doubt behaviourally that it's someone's sock. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Could you block marknutley's IPSOCK, [10]?

Hi, that is me again. Now I think you are right about marknutley. After I've searched for and reviewed contributions by IPs to various articles in this area, I would conclude that they are uncharacteristic for those other editors which I suspected. I think this is the last time I bother you with this. Thanks. (Igny (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

Curiosity

Why 5 years? Materialscientist (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Reasons: Runtshit, open proxy, static Bluehost IP, [11], no innocent non-proxy users in the forseeable. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I am an old fan of yours and wouldn't mind to get educated at any chance, if you don't mind off course. (i) How do users actually connect through this open proxy? (ii) It sits on a rotten Bluehost /19 range [12], with infrequent, unconstructive, but often childish edits. You've blocked some individual IPs, not the range. Any reason for that? Materialscientist (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'll send you an email (I'll send it to anyone else who asks). I'll also plug the Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Guide to checking open proxies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Donate

Hello Stifle. I'm trying to track down the provenance of this solicitation, apart from your good self. Can you help? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's from the OTRS stock replies list (as a reply to "do you accept Indian rupees"?) Stifle (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I removed a phishing-type link from that page today and thought I'd check the others. Since I can't check OTRS I'll take your word that you've checked it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Eep. Nice catch. I have verified the link is good. That page should have been protected all along. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Another Proxy Check please

Hi Zzuuzz. Could you please check whether or not 65.254.34.210 (talk · contribs) is an open proxy? Elockid ^(Talk) 19:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from John

For reverting vandalism to my user talk page. --John (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Spurr

the idea that a source must be on the internet is preposterous and can be found in no Wikipedia policy. I have rv'd Leta1000flowersbloom (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I did read it again, and found unsurprisingly, no notion of a distinction between on-line and off-line sources in WP:BLP. This sort of mindless removal of sourced factual and evidence-based material, relying upon Wikipedia' policies that in fact do not support the removal, is a serious breach of editing privileges. I will await you response before taking further action. Leta1000flowersbloom (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require high-quality sources. Shall we revisit this tomorrow after the rest of the mainstream media has picked it up? I am serious about blocking you if you unilaterally restore it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

May 3rd needs a protection and warning...

I am not sure how to do this, but I noticed that you did a lock down on Pope John Paul II page, so I am coming to you because of that...

Here is the currently history for May 3rd...

1. (cur | prev) 10:35, 3 May 2011 72.214.116.147 (talk) (28,898 bytes) (→Births) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 10:33, 3 May 2011 Eposty (talk | contribs) (28,846 bytes) (Undid revision 427240343 by 72.214.116.147 (talk) Graham Kerster does not have a Wikipedia article. Do not add birthday.) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 10:29, 3 May 2011 72.214.116.147 (talk) (28,898 bytes) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 10:27, 3 May 2011 Eposty (talk | contribs) (28,846 bytes) (Undid revision 427236973 by 72.214.116.147 (talk)) (undo)
5. (cur | prev) 10:02, 3 May 2011 72.214.116.147 (talk) (28,898 bytes) (→Births) (undo)
6. (cur | prev) 09:59, 3 May 2011 Eposty (talk | contribs) (28,846 bytes) (→Births) (undo)
7. (cur | prev) 09:56, 3 May 2011 72.214.116.147 (talk) (28,898 bytes) (→Births) (undo)

The individual at the IP keeps adding a birthday for a Graham Kerster who does not have a page at Wiki... I have deleted it, but they keep coming back and re-adding it... As an administrator, could you please step in and assist?

Thanks...

Eposty (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've applied a temporary block while the user gets familiar with the issues. You can request protection at WP:RFPP, by the way. Probably not appropriate for this situation, but you may find it useful in the future. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick response and the information for future problems... Hopefully after the block expires, they won't go back in and attack it again... posty (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The King's School, Macclesfield‎‎

Thanks for the reverts on this one. It's galling when you spend hours on good faith edits to try to make an article work, only to have IPs swarming in to add unsupportable stuff. Appreciated. Acabashi (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Any time! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)