User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 23

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.

Thanks!

I just wanted to thank you for the swift semi-protection of Circa Survive. The page was in a pretty bad state prior due to all the IP vandals. Take care! —Entropy (T/C) 09:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding IP talk page

You realise that's Hamish Ross, right? Egg Centric 22:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contact us

I don't think this page needs to be full protected. There were plenty of constructive edits during its period of semi-protection, and very few nonconstructive ones, regardless of PC. Gigs (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, an interesting dilemma, a decision I didn't take lightly, but one I arrived at after due consideration of all relevant things. Feel free to ask another admin to take responsibility for it (perhaps Slim?). It's OK with me. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

May 10th page needs protected...

There has been at least 4 edits that put in "1978 – Danny McCarthy English, Full Time Legend" for May 10. Could you please bring down the hammer. Thanks. posty (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You'll find this happens on most date articles. There used to be a a bot that enforced removal, but unfortunately it hasn't worked for a while. The way to tackle these articles is not through protection, as there are usually constructive edits from new users on today's date. Instead add some warnings to the offending user's talk page - admins are disinclined to block users who haven't been warned. I notice this user has now been warned, and is now safely on their way to their block. I'll try and keep an eye on it. (188.223.142.202 (talk · contribs)). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

4 new blatant socks of Stubes99

Can you please take a look at this case? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stubes99 Thanks in advance (Iapulangura (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC))

But equally importantly, whose sockpuppet are you? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that I am a blocked user, but this is not about editing on my behalf, but about treating the blocked users (me and Stubes99) in the same manner.

Neither of us has the right to edit WP and we must benefit of the same treatment. In the name of justice, I respectfully ask you to block those accounts

Thanks in advance and I hope you will take into account this request (Iapulangura (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC))

I will take a look. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at [1] as well.--Nmate (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Socktastic. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad I ignored this please

See [2] which a friendly talk page stalker has removed. I'm glad I ignored it! Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nakba Day

Since you have reseted the pending changes settings for Nakba Day, it has been edited 25 times by Tiamut. I find some of these changes misleading, bias and POV. Israguy (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Then please amend them, and/or gain consensus about them through discussion. This has little to do with the protection level - the pending changes trial has ended, the subsequent edits would have been accepted anyway, and replacement with semi-protection would have had no effect. Sorry there's little I can do about it, other than advise you to discuss the changes with someone. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

PC Trial?

I noticed that you semi-protected Atheism and kept noting "end of PC Trial" (June 25) in your edit summaries. I'm just curious to know what this PC Trial is, and why it ends on June 25? Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 14:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. The Pending changes trial ended sometime between now and last year. Please see Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011 and its talk page (and its many related pages and archives...). I was responding to this request, and applied semi-protection for six weeks to around the end of the school year, when vandalism traditionally disappears almost entirely. If you'd like it unprotected now I would consider that, but I consider the article has more chance of remaining open to editing if the inevitable vandalism was stalled until terms ends. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I have no objection. I was just curious what you meant by PC trial, but now it's clear. Thanks! John Shandy` • talk 16:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hi! I noticed that after I opend the account an English language Wikipedia, that you where the one to leave me the greating message. So, I was thinking that, if you have same time, you could help me with some things. The main thing that preoccupies me is the fact that I would like to connect on the the IRC channel of English Wikipedia, but I just do not manage that. I was trying to connect by using pidgin, and with the name thenerdfromearth . Could you, please, tell me why I can not do that? And also, if you have the time, I thought that you might chat with me sometime on IRC English Wikipedia channel?! Namely, I have same serious questions about some things about editing Articles on Wikipedia. -- The Nerd from Earth ^(talk) 01:24, 22 May 2011 (CET)

Hello. I don't really do IRC, but someone in #wikipedia-en-help should be able to help you. You can access the channels through this link (apparently). You will need to use a username that no one else is using - if in doubt you might want to use one that's got some randomness to it. There are further instructions at WP:IRC. I'd say make sure you're using a freenode server (irc.freenode.net), and the right channel name. I've never used Pidgin, but if you use Firefox, I've always found ChatZilla fairly OK to use. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

User talk:Malik Shabazz/Talk

Hi. I created that page as a sandbox for IPs to leave nasty messages when my Talk page is semi-protected. I appreciate your reverting the messages, but it's really not necessary; I blank the page every hour or so.

For what it's worth, I think blocking the IPs is an exercise in futility because they're all controlled by a single editor. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

[3]. Would you be so kind as to check out 208.85.0.114 and 66.87.82.161 as well. They seem to be IPs of the same cloth. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've blocked one of them. It's a bit tldr, so I'll ask you if you'd be interested in guessing who might be using these open proxies? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect User:TomPhan. Reference [[4]] for more info. Additionally, I have seen IPs or new users initially support me and then have a sudden "revelation" a few days later excoriating me. i.e. "Support BQ makes great points! I just learned the history of BQ and am amazed by his hostility..." Please keep an eye out for those. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Could we get a block on user:187.115.202.178 as well? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

TorNodeBot

I added one line of code to help with analysis of what it's doing (so I can leave it running continuously). It turns out that the TorBlock extension is having brief periods where it cuts out. You can see that in the logs where it will stop doing anything for hours, and then suddenly start blocking a bunch of nodes, even though it's running the whole time. I'll leave it up for now just to keep an eye on things but I'm really curious what the root cause of this is. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

request to change an edit filter

Could you set filter 39 to disallow? I have been seeing 0 false positives and a bunch of non-constructive edits being tagged by it. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. As it stands I don't think that's a good idea. The filter is not intended to catch ordinary vandalism, which should be caught be other filters. Instead, filter 39 is intended to catch edits which are highly likely to be require review, but at the price of a significant chance (a certainty) of false positives. There are often false positives. It is very similar to filter 189 in that respect. See my comment here. As I've said before, there may be a case to carefully split the filter into two - one for edits which are almost certainly vandalism when present in a school article (possibly the only examples I can find in the current filter are "fuck", "cunt" and "brothel"), and those edits which it's necessary to continue to allow but flag for review ("cock", "pornographic", "sexual abuse", "had sex", "expelled", "prostitution", "paedophile"). It's the latter examples which this filter is intended to catch, and they are undoubtedly sometimes used legitimately, which is why I think the more certain vandalism belongs in another filter. Due to the unattended nature of school articles, the filter is also specifically designed not just to catch additions, but to catch examples already existing in the text. This adds to its unsuitably for disallow. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock thread at WP:AN

I used of quote of yours at a thread on rangeblocks & proxies at WP:AN. I thought you might want to comment on it. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Revaaron

Could I get you to comment on User talk:Revaaron#Unblock_Request, the checks aren't conclusive on that specific IP, I don't really know if we still hold the rangeblock or what. (I do know it's globally blocked also) Also i'm still not really clear, are we blocking web hosts still and do they fall under blockedproxy tempalte? -- DQ (t) (e) 11:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've left an initial comment there. It's not entirely clear why or how the IP is being used, but it seems fairly certain that it's being voluntarily used as a proxy (SSH or HTTPS), which could be disabled, and which falls under the anonymising proxy part of the policy. IPBE could be an option after review, if there's a need. Softblocking the IP could be done, but I'm not entirely convinced about that given its various names and history. I will leave it in your capable hands as I'm off on a wikibreak. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:212.78.230.156

FYI- An IP is requesting a review of a rangeblock you placed last year. TNXMan 15:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Arminiy

Hi mate, I noticed you warned User:Arminiy back in 2010 for performing cut-and-paste moves. Well, I've just caught him at it again with Ulisses F.C. and I thought you might like to take disciplinary action about it. Thanks. – PeeJay 16:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Prox-imity Award

Slakr's Prox-imity Award For your work in helping to detect and block open proxies of all shapes and sizes, I hereby award you a magical proximity switch. I hear it allows one to magically close an open proximity circuit, so it surely must close open proxies in close proximity...or something like that. :P Keep up the great work. =) Cheers, --slakr\ talk / 00:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Sorry about that! 28bytes (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Zzuuzz. You have new messages at 94.23.201.171's talk page.
Message added 03:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not sure if this should be {{tb}}'d or if it will just drop back into the queue of things to look at. If not then just ignore this (: - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Suspicious edits. Thank you.Drmies (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Our IP friend

Would you be able to slap some more substantial bantime on this guy if you see him again? This is starting to look pretty ridiculous, and I want to refile my complaint. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Firstly, please RBI. Secondly, please go to the abuse response talk page. I'm not going to routinely block IP addresses which change hands in a matter of days for years. If there's a bureaucracy problem at the abuse response page, it needs to be fixed there. My suggestion would be to report it as a range, and provide a good number of examples going back years. By the way, what are your views on having your talk page protected? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd think we'd be past RBI, unless deleting individual edits is something new that hasn't been tried in the last four years. Also, looking at the history of John Gotti, I can't really pinpoint a range.

I figured I'd just make a suggestion since I saw you blocked this one. Just in case you get to him first any other times.

You think I could actually get something done about him on Abuse Response? I saw you couldn't, and I wasn't sure of what to do besides see if I could accelerate the process of a year of bans. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no getting past RBI :) I am happy to temporarily fake a block of any number of years for any recent IP, however there are other bureaucratic criteria which could be relied on at abuse response. In fact there you go - 77.125.0.93 is now blocked for a year and a day. I'll reset it at some point because it's pointless. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully this might work when he shows up next. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Strange proxy block (unfixable)

A guy on unblock-en-l is asking us to create an account, since he has run into the following block:

My IP address: (202.40.139.109) Reason for blocking: {{blocked proxy}} <!-- 143.89.156.21:8909 -->.

He is at a university and it appears that they are using a transparent proxy that Google sees on various proxy lists. (Which makes it sound bad). On the other hand, the proxy belongs to the university (good).

Here is what ProcseeBot did:

18:17, 23 September 2011 ProcseeBot (talk | contribs | block) blocked 202.40.139.109 (talk) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 months ‎ ({{blocked proxy}} <!-- 143.89.156.21:8909 -->) (unblock | change block)

I activated 143.89.156.21 as a proxy myself, so that part is confirmed. What the heck was ProcseeBot thinking? It hardblocked the user of the transparent proxy and not the proxy itself. The proxy is still open for business.

How about if we create an account for this guy and also give him IPBE? This is too weird.

Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, these can be a bit tricky. ProcseeBot has blocked an exit server (ustlnx52.ust.hk (202.40.139.109)), because that's the IP the proxy is exiting on. If you check your IP address when using the proxy you'll see that's the only IP address worth blocking. What's happening is 143.89.156.21 (dmg021.resnet.ust.hk) - this looks like a computer in student halls with a virus - is sending their web traffic via one of the university's shared caching proxies. So anyone else who shares that caching proxy (which is probably not optional) is going to experience the same block. I have looked at the request and IPBE should be OK. A note to the network admin can sometimes be appreciated, or they may find it quickly themselves. It has only been up a few days, and probably won't last much longer, IME. Top marks to ProcseeBot, though these blocks are never popular. See also this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

On the unblock list I suggested it might be less drastic to reduce the hard block of 202.40.139.109 to anon-only. I would agree to ask Slakr (the maintainer of ProcseeBot) if he objects to that change. I am not yet persuaded that 202.40.139.109 is the exit node; it could be the machine from which our guy is making his edits. Curiously, that IP address responds to ping, so it is not hidden by their network. We theorize that all of the university's outgoing traffic is forced to go through the transparent proxy, so hard-blocking the transparent proxy would be quite serious. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw it exiting from that IP earlier. An anonblock should be fine, it should be fairly short IMO (like a week). I notice the open proxy seems to be currently down, but then again it is the middle of the night in Hong Kong. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Story came to a good ending, since I created an account for him and he was able to use it. No more proxy warnings. I did not have to give him IPBE or change any blocks to anon-only. Thanks for your help. EdJohnston (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

alternate IP of vandal

I saw you blocked this IP; it looks like the same vandal was (is) also using this IP, which has yet to be blocked. I thought I'd let you know; feel free to delete this section to keep your Talk page clean once the matter has been resolved! Wingman4l7 (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured he's probably finished with that IP, having been assigned the new one. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

AIV reported socks

Hey, just a quick tip, if someone reports supposed socks to AIV that have no edits, they aren't really blockable unless there is a reason given as to why they're socks, more so if the haven't edited or tripped a filter (not to mention AIV isn't where we're supposed to report socks anyway). Just letting you know. Kwsn (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mascot Guy. Unmistakeable. No question whatsoever. I even blocked them all before looking at AIV. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi zzuuzz, I was one of the admins who declined to block based on the AIV report. You see, I understand how you're feeling that this is this Mascot Guy, that this is his pattern it must be him and why are we even discussing this. However as somebody who isn't familiar with the subject, who simply was pointed to the report and the LTA page about him, I really have troubles connecting the dots. We discussed it a bit on other mediums, and others had the same issues as I did. I understand how you've probably dealt with this a number of times and now can just spot them right away, but for us it's not as simple, seeing it from the outside, so it would really be helpful if you could help us/me understand why you say it's unmistakably Mascot Guy and should be blocked on sight rather than simply stating so. Nobody is doubting that you and who repoted it may be right, it's just not as easy to understand to the outside. Thanks and best of luck in all your endeavors, as always, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate that, and what Kwsn said. It's like if someone reports an account at AIV just saying "Runtshit" - while some would insist on a final warning a small number would block within seconds. AIV relies on some admins being able to recognise certain things. However, I'll re-emphasise that I merely browsed to the new accounts list straight from my watchlist, and didn't even look at AIV until after I'd blocked them all. I may have otherwise commented there. Anyway, Mascot Guy, it's all in the usernames - five (six) account creations from the same account with usernames of his style, including some of the aspects listed at the LTA page. I have never seen any other user do this. I guess it comes with experience, but this instance is an exemplar. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some other examples would also help.[5][6][7][8]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment & question

Hi Zzuuzz. I wanted to follow up on your comment on the CU page; can you point me to any IP blocks you feel were too long or short? I would consider that valuable feedback, regardless of how things go with the CU application. 28bytes (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes sorry about that comment - I wish you luck, you seem fairly sensible. You are welcome to persuade me otherwise about 89.240.168.181 (talk · contribs · block log) and 2.121.126.59 (talk · contribs · block log), both of which were dynamic, used for under 3 minutes, and blocked for a month. They constitute 5% of your blocking log, and 12.5% of your IP blocks so they kind of stick out. I believe you can tell a lot about an admin's experience (for this role anyway) by how they block IP addresses. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. Yes, looking at those two blocks, I have to agree with you: they should have been much shorter. I made the mistake of escalating block lengths for the person, not the address, which of course could affect other people who may inherit that IP after the bad guy switches to another one. No worries for pointing that out, I would rather know about my errors so I can learn from them than keep making them! Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

2014 olympic curling

Was contemplating starting a page with current details for the qualification process for the next olympics and saw the notice there. I am not well versed on what qualifies as an article or not but I believe a page for the 2014 olympic curling tournament is legitimate now. The official governing body of curling has a page that explains qualification for all their tournaments, including the next olympics. The qualification process began with the 2011 world championships, so we have current relevent information to present in tables. Also we have details from the sochi site of the venue and schedule. I track this information myself anyway, but based on what I have viewed in other sports related pages, it appears to me that expressing the current situation is relevent for wikipedia at this time. I will await your response, thank you for your time.18abruce (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure what notice you're referring to, and I can't predict the reception of any future-based articles, however, if we can have Ice hockey at the 2014 Winter Olympics and Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics, I'm sure we can have an article about Curling at the 2014 Winter Olympics. As always the more references you can find the better. You might want to look at the histories of Curling at the 2010 Winter Olympics and Curling at the 2006 Winter Olympics (etc) for some ideas. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, now I see. The page I deleted had one edit by User:Imamazing541 which simply said "get ready cause its gonna be kick ass". I'm sure you can improve on that. Be my guest. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I tend to be very cautious, sports I know, html not so much. I planned to use the 2010 page as a basic template and try to stick to published official data as I have done with many IIHF pages. FYI, I created, and have done most of the work on the Ice hockey at the 2014 Winter Olympics pages, and would welcome any criticism you have of what is presented there.18abruce (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit filter

Thanks for granting the flag. I've got what I needed for Wikibooks. So I no longer need the flag. Thanks. – Adrignola talk 21:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:CUOS/2011

Thank you for participating in the appointment round by submitting additional questions to candidates. Given that the candidates have spent time fielding your questions, it would be appreciated if you would comment on their handling of your questions publicly or privately. –xeno^talk 12:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank for the reminder. They handled it OK. I've chosen to send an email, but would happily respond to any candidates who express an interest. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please review these blocks

There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.

1. How to lose fat (talk · block log · block user) by Zzuuzz at 2011-10-08T20:40:15Z, expires infinity: {{spamblock}}
2. Free debt consolidation (talk · block log · block user) by Zzuuzz at 2011-10-08T20:41:26Z, expires infinity: {{spamblock}}

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post at User talk:Anomie#Allowusertalk issue. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, however those blocks were non-scripted and as intended. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

regarding your recent protection on the articles Mormonism and Christianity and Joseph Smith

I think they need longer term protection because looking at the article history, they are both very unstable and I see a lot of reverts in their history. Longer term protection, such and two weeks or 1 month may be needed. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 16:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Joseph Smith, while I do understand you are an admin, and that I likely am wrong on this, (since you are reverting vandalism) just wanted to point out that you are over the 3RR limit by one revert--two if you count the revision restore you made via the popups--, that is, if what you are doing is not an exception to 3rr. Even if it is an exception, you should still let other people do some reversion too, as it could possibly be seen as a 3rr vio by one or two admins. Just wanted to point this out. :) Have a good day! LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 16:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think those edits are intended to improve the encyclopaedia, or more accurately not obviously intended to compromise its integrity, I think you're wrong. However I have already raised this at ANI if you want to chip in there and get some other opinions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

LL2, vandalism reverts (as well as other types of edits) are always exempt from 3RR. See WP:NOT3RR for the full list. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Mackemfixer and hoax article

Hi, you recently blocked User:Mackemfixer for abuse of multiple accounts. Mackemfixer had previously created a fairly detailed hoax article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Bridgestock) which went undiscovered for several months, and also had some BLP implications. An IP address that tried to defend the hoax article, User talk:82.23.100.139 (which geolocates to the same town whose football team Mackemfixer claimed to be a fan of), has now also been blocked for 31 hours for going on a vandalism spree soon after I left a note about the hoax article on their talk page.

I've been through Mackemfixer's contribs looking for other hoaxes, and although the account had created some BLPs of footballers, I've confirmed that they weren't hoaxes.

Are there any other named accounts that you can disclose as being the same person as Mackemfixer, so that I can check their contribs for any additional political (or other) hoaxes? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, wait, I see User:Anthoeleon is one, I'll have a look through that. Please let me know if there were any others. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll also have a wade through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mackemfixer/Archive :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that one. The other accounts were all created today, and didn't contribute much, from what I can tell. Saying that, it is ringing some distant bells. I'll let you know if anything comes to me. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm possibly recalling Routerone (talk · contribs · block log), now tagged as a sock of Mackemfixer, and with other socks of his own if I recall correctly. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I caught him with an IP sock quite a while ago, I don't know of any others, I think he was more careful after that. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I also remember dealing with 82.23.106.229 (talk · contribs · block log) from 2009. That's the same user, and still going apparently. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet talk

If you want to say this was over weeks ago and I should drop this especially because no action was taken towards me, I will gladly accept that. A summary is here and a discussion is here.

I do find it troublesome that users (particularly an admin) were very quick to consider that I was socking. Perhaps I'm subjective but I wonder if you looked at my edit history before this warning to block me [9].

The bottom line is that I made two civil reversions of edits I felt were incorrect and politely explained my position on the talk page with an invite to take it to a noticeboard. I then went on vacation.

Thank you for your time. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, yes I had a very good look indeed. As I said to the sockpuppet, they could do you a favour by not looking just like your sockpuppet. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I got it. I made two edits that adhered to the guideline and engaged in civil discussion. Then if an IP comes along that happens to have my stance, it looks like my sockpuppet. Never mind that I have no history on the topic, and that I have been around for years with no trouble. I'm just glad that the IP took the time to say he had nothing to do with me. Who knows what else I could've come back to. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyway this is not just any ordinary IP, it's a sockpuppeting user with a previous registered account on an open proxy. It sticks out a mile. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with me? --CutOffTies (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Who knows. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

86.184.50.45

You blocked this IP as a sock. I'm not familiar with this sock's origins or its SOP; but noticed a new user account Edward Buckner (talk · contribs) start up almost at the same time as your block. I have no idea if they're related, but thought I would mention it to you in case they are the same user(s). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I've already hardblocked the IP due to that. I'll wait for the checkusers to turn up. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for sorting the vandalism on the Mary Blair article

You're too quick for me! Whilst I was flailing about trying to revert vandalism it seems you were already well aware -- I may have filed the AIV at the very same moment you blocked the IP (excuse my ineptitude if so)... Too fast for a low level contributor :-). Christopher (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It was sat at RFPP for a full three minutes before that :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Gillian Andrassy (Lavery)

Gillian Andrassy and Gillian Andrassy Lavery have revisions that violate copyrights of http://pinevalleybulletin.com/Quick%20Guide/BiographiesWeb/AndrassyGillian.html. Where do you stand? --Gh87 (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look. A question like that suggests I'm missing a debate somewhere else though? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

And could you point to some particular revisions, to help identify what needs revdeleting? Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that the entire histories of both pages should be deleted, due to what is in effect an AFD without merge (along with the subsequent copyvio), and then both redirected to the character list article where any new content on the subject can be added. What do you think? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand there appears to be some mergeable content in the first article, which would involve defining where the copyvio began and then merging it to the character article before selectively deleting revisions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

(←) No need to give you links. You can simply compare history after history; otherwise, I will tell you this: "All the 'Gillian Andrassy' revisions has infringed text. Some 'Gillian Andrassy Lavery' revisions have as well." Go to "History" tab, and find one. --Gh87 (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have tidied that one up. If you're asking me to look at revisions, yes, please provide much information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Foreskin vandals

Saw you blocked the last one, but there's a new 'Occupy Foreskin' vandal/sock. here--Львівське (говорити) 04:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been rangeblocking all of them, as they belong to the same anonymity network. They'll soon run out. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

aaaand another here--Львівське (говорити) 17:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 Van earthquake page move vandal

Thanks for getting onto that so quickly Zzuuzz. Mikenorton (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"Occupy" protests vandalism

Hi there, Zzuzz. Thanks for helping deal with the vandalism at "Occupy" protests and blocking the vandalising users. I've made a requests for the page to be protected - do you think you could answer that, please? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps :) I think if you protect one page it will just shift to another where it isn't expected, so it's better to keep the IPs in one place and block the IP network, eventually. Anyway, it will get protected. If anyone notices this guy shift to another article drop me a note. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm Huggling at the moment, so should pick him up if he starts it somewhere else. If so, I'll let you know. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Kind Of A Noobish Question, But...

How long am I banned from editing, by the way? >.> Cybertron2006 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Your temporary block has expired, and you are free to edit again :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Be assured that the vandal won't strike again, as I have found out who was doing the heinous deed. ;D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybertron2006 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please...

... could you block my user page against IP vandalism. As you can see in my history there is someone who is permanently and countless times blocked in German wikipedia because auf racism, hate and offends (compare de:Benutzer:Otberg/L50) but he is active here now. --Roksanna (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I was about to offer to do that :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Best regards --Roksanna (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Look, man, Wikipedia just doesn't get it.

This IP is a school page. S-C-H-O-O-L. Elementary. Obviously this IP will vandalise pages. 38.104.159.202 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

mail

You have WP:BEANS in your mailbox.—Kww(talk) 10:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have problem with a user

I saw you are able to speak the german language, so I talk with you in german. Die Benutzerin Roxanna (hier im anglophonen Wikipedia bekannt als Roksanna) ist eine islamistische Kampfaktivistin die das Ziel verfolgt den gesamten Themenkomplex "Rolle des Islams in verschiedenen Ländern als kultureller Einflussfaktor" mittels geschichtsverfälschenden Methoden, wie etwa durch den Gebrauch, der Reglung des Quellenpluralismus zum trotz, einseitiger apologetischer Literatur wie beispielsweise von Tariq Ramadan, den historischen Fakten ungemäß zu übertonen und zur Unkenntlichkeit schön zu färben. Ich wäre ihnen zu Dank verpflichtet wenn sie die genannte Benutzerin überwachen würden.--95.114.8.19 (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Es scheint, haben wir hier kein Problem, abgesehen von den Problemen von woanders. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Bitte nehmen sie meinen Aufruf ernst da sie die deutsche Sprache beherrschen zeige ich ihnen etwas, was nur einen der wenigen Regelverstöße der genannten Benutzer darstellt:

[10]

"Ich biete meine Vermittlung an, wenn beide Seiten von ihrer persönlichen Betroffenheit am oft hochgeschaukelten Armenierschicksal etwas herunterkommen und hier zu erarbeitende Kompromißformulierungen akzeptieren werden. Roxanna 08:52, 5. Aug 2005 (CEST)"

Wie man hier eindeutig erkennen kann hat das sie den Völkermord an den Armeniern verharmlost

"Mädels, versteht Ihr das doch nicht? Es geht hier nicht um 5 Sockenpuppen, sondern um fünf real existierende Wikipedianer, die fünf Passwörter und fünf Benutzerkonten tauschen und gemeinsam nutzen. Roxanna 19:13, 9. Aug 2005 (CEST)"

Hier gibt sie sogar die Agenda der mit der ihr befreundeten Negationisten offen zu.

--77.3.119.162 (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello zzuuzz! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Range contributions

Hey Zzuuzz. Do you recall what tool is now available to display contributions from an IP range? Sadly, the one created by soxred93 is out of action. Someone created a new one but I lost the pointer. At WP:AN3 there are a series of cases where an IP from 65.88.88.* is POV warring on articles about Kashmir and Pakistan. (The range belongs to the NY Public Library). I would consider at least a short rangeblock but the CIDR gadget is too hard to see anything from, and it is desirable to see how many good-faith anon contributions have come from the /24 range in the last month or so. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I choose MediaWiki:Gadget-contribsrange.js, available in preferences->gadgets. Toggle all and search by part of the date, should give you a good idea. Looks like a busy old range. 65.88.88.0/24 (talk · contribs). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't tried the Toggle All, it does help. Seems to be a lot of bona fide contribs. If this guy continues maybe a bunch of individual IPs should be blocked instead of the range. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker): HelloAnnyong also created a similar tool. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 16:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Caitsith2 requesting unblock

At User talk:Caitsith2#Question for administrator this guy is asking for his proxy block to be lifted. It has the air of being a former open proxy, based on the Google results. User:Closedmouth ran nmap and could not find any open ports. The IP belongs to Telus, a major internet provider in British Columbia. It is hard to believe they would run an open proxy service but easy to imagine they would not secure their servers properly (cf. the spam blacklisting cited on the user's talk). Here is the result of proxyip4.

64.114.24.58 · talk · contribs · block · log · stalk · Robtex · whois · Google · ipcheck · HTTP · geo · rangeblocks · spur · shodan Thanks for any opinion that you can provide. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it looks like it was only open for a very short time in 2009, a few days perhaps, typical of the HTTP proxies anontalk used to use. I've unblocked the IP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE UNBLOCK MY USERNAME!

Hi there -- I realize I'm new to this and perhaps you can help me. I created the account Star-Entertainment-Group because that's my company. I created it so that I could provide accurate info to my page(s)like Victoria Paige Meyerink because I am Victoria Paige Meyerink. Then you go and block my company name and I've had to create another account! It's very frustrating to have info on yourself out there by people who don't know anything about you. A couple of years ago, someone ACCURATELY completed a page on me, then someone else, for no reason, deleted most of it. How is this possible for people to maintain accurate info on themselves if ANYONE AND EVERYONE can edit and write whatever they want??!! So, could you please unblock my other account, and perhaps assist be telling me how I can enter info and post images & links THEN how to request that the page be 'locked' so that others can't undo all the work? I'd really appreciate your assistance. Thank you! Meyerink-PR (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Meyerink-PR: I have replied at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

50.17.159.18

I wonder if this IP address is the same person: 174.137.184.36, 85.195.138.27, and/or Special:Contributions/82.200.168.154. --George Ho (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed probably, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dane97 by name, apparently. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll of course be blocked again after stating this, but I was too tempted to say that I find it beyond humorous that either of you would accuse me of being Dane97, someone who knows nothing about Wikipedia policies or guidelines and doesn't even talk! Seriously.

Oh, and I was absolutely right about George Ho...which is why he is currently blocked. 221.6.29.66 (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

96.45.190.21‎

So I notice you blocked that IP as an open proxy...just wondering, how do you spot open proxies? I can spot IPs vandalizing like that one was, but I couldn't tell if one was an open proxy if you gave me all day to sit and look at it. Are there particular places to look for particular things to determine if one is an open proxy? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a known open proxy editing pattern, used by several known vandals for different reasons. I have protected a few such talk pages this evening, but it goes way back. There happens to be a handy Guide to checking open proxies. Two tips for this IP address: Look at the rDNS link on its contribs page, and check the first page of the Google results for the IP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, that makes things much clearer. Thanks for the info. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that well-deserved school block

On 173.161.134.100. Is there a place where such things can be requested better than the one I chose? SBHarris 20:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that page is no good for it, AIV is too busy for it, ANI is too dramatic, perhaps WP:AN might get a response if there's not much going on. I made a suggestion for another board a while back, because there is no appropriate place. You could try poking an admin directly, but I would advise caution as shared IP addresses are tricky things to judge. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In regards to

Zzuuzz, you're not a CU, are you? I want to open up an SPI starting with Raven1985 after seeing this edit. I've blocked the account as VOA, but I think there's something there. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Saw your response. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Right?
  • Like I said :) But probably worth a CU anyway. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Coincidence, I think--someone else had vandalized something that yours tried to move. I did file an SPI and added this one. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Junk removal

I'd like everything between these two edits to be selectively deleted. Best form of WP:DENY.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Say please next time, please. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• I see a pattern here of admins abusing their power. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but may you please remove the new junk too?Jasper Deng (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and might never be one. Wish I was one for uncontroversial purposes like this.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I hadn't realised there was a page for reporting suspected open proxies. That should simplify some matters for me in the future. --GenericBob (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I usually get to them before that point :) Bear in mind things are sometimes a bit laid back there. Get them blocked first, then WP:OP (that's usually me) will get round to blocking them properly. They're usually long term proxies with this one, and worth taking the time to rangeblock or block long time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Will do, cheers. She hops proxies frequently so length of block doesn't make much difference to her, but I guess it prevents other vandals from using the same proxy. Hm, I wonder if it'd be possible to train a bot to auto-check IPs editing her preferred targets... --GenericBob (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Block oddness

Heya! I noticed over at User talk:Johnno777 that something odd is going on. The user says he is editing from 196.46.71.251 (and checkuser confirms this), and is running into a proxy block. But look at the block on that IP; it says {{blocked proxy}} on 41.56.205.103:3128. I bring this up to you because you previously unblocked 196.46.71.251 as "not an open proxy", but why is it blocked and claiming that 41... thing is the target? wtf? (which means What? Thanksgiving? FOOD!) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The thing is if you connect to the proxy at 41.56.205.103, and make an edit, it'll be done with the IP of 196.46.71.251 (in theory it would have an untrusted XFF for 41.56.205.103). The open proxy is the 41. address, and a port scan would show port 3128 is open on the 41. address. A port scan of 196.46.71.251 may not show any open ports, while as it's the IP that makes the edit it's the only IP worth blocking as an open proxy. These are fairly common. Take a look at 220.255.1.78 (talk · contribs · block log) and Wikipedia:OP#220.255.1.78 where I run into an explanation, and at 194.126.21.9 (talk · contribs · block log). See also User talk:Twort and User talk:Jashca. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

IP-hopping user

A case of an IP-hopping user is reported on one of the noticeboards. It occurs to me that the guy might be using proxies. (An editor has speculated that this guy is an employee of an ISP). Nmap gives the following result. (IP replaced by x.x.x.x). Does this look like a real open proxy to you?

% /usr/local/bin/nmap -Pn x.x.x.x

Starting Nmap 5.51 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2011-11-25 16:49 EST
Nmap scan report for cpe-x.x.x.x.nc.res.rr.com (x.x.x.x)
Host is up (0.083s latency).
Not shown: 998 filtered ports
PORT     STATE  SERVICE
113/tcp  closed auth
8080/tcp open   http-proxy

Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 1114.41 seconds

The usual screening using proxyip4 shows little of interest, but if you try to access http://x.x.x.x:8080 a login page eventually opens, which wants a login and password. Thanks for any opinion, EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Difficult to guess without an IP address. Port 8080 is a typical proxy port, but used for closed proxies and web services as well as open proxies. What you've described is more like a closed service, but it could still be open. What happens if you use it as a HTTP or SOCKS proxy? What is shown if you fail to authenticate? What other IPs are being used? Those are the clues you may find useful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)