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.
Comments on Structuration theory welcomed!
Hello! My name is MJ, and I have made significant changes to the Structuration page. I saw that you have previously contributed to the page, I am looking for contributions and comments on some of the changes I have made! I would appreciate your comments, suggestions, and contributions! I look forward to discussing the page on the Talk page. Mjscheer (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
link=User talk:<mjscheer>Hello, Zzuuzz. You have new messages at [[User talk:<mjscheer>|User talk:<mjscheer>]]. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, zzuuzz! Thank you for your kind words! If you know of anyone else who might be interested in looking over the Structuration page, please let me (or them) know! Thank you! Mjscheer (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
link=User talk:Talk:<Structuration>#[Request for feedback outside of the formal RFF above]Hello, Zzuuzz. You have new messages at [[User talk:Talk:<Structuration>#[Request for feedback outside of the formal RFF above]|User talk:Talk:<Structuration>]]. Message added 16:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I appreciate
your fast action at Willem de Kooning. The odd thing is that he is not even on my watchlist, I got to the article for Bronze sculpture - where he was listed with a funky link, but did not (opinion) belong. So I fixed the link, went there and found that mess. Thanks again, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I find the 'Undo' link is helpful in only very limited circumstances. You might want to review the other options available at Help:Reverting. -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. Usually the Undo button is enough, but in this case it was not. I am not really a computer person and find that other options often just confuse me. However it is also good to get some different synapses firing every now and again, and this might be one of those times. I still have not been able to do the one edit that I planned before work today. Life. What a place to live. Carptrash (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For dealing with Yourname sock. Andrew Kurish (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TP blanking edit filter
Would there please be an edit filter to stop things like what happened here? All it would need is to check if the user is blocked and is reverting like crazy.Jasper Deng(talk) 01:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The edit filter is unable to detect if a user is blocked or if the page they are editing belongs to a user who is blocked. Most of the edits were by an unblocked IP. However it has given me another idea which I'll look into. A word of advice: absolutely the best thing to do is not revert as fast. It only excites and encourages them. There is a better variation of RBI called WP:BRI. Don't forget the 'I' on the end. -- zzuuzz(talk) 03:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to let SineBot get in the way.Jasper Deng(talk) 04:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SineBot is easy to work around, especially after the block. -- zzuuzz(talk) 04:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Zzuuzz. You have new messages at WT:OP. Message added 12:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Given to members of the community who take on huge backlogs several times, or maintaining a large part of a project. -- DQ (t) (e)
You have been nominated by User:DeltaQuad for this award for your constant contribution to the open proxy project. Thanks for picking things up while I took a cycle away from the board :). Thank you for your constant dedication to the project. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BroadNarrow
Repeat offender, or a one off? --GraemeL(talk) 14:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the secure server is not affected...
...I've update the UKBlock template. I have also checked whether this affected the block message (as for all I know it is subst'd during the block) and it has updated. Hope this is fine? Cheers, EggCentric 20:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good for now. The template is used as the block message for all the 'clean' proxies affected last time which includes most major ISPs, but since they're mostly currently blocked we don't know if they currently get to see it, or if they'll be affected soon. -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No edits since you lifted the block. Maybe BT have undone whatever was forcing connections to WP through the proxy. --GraemeL(talk) 13:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wondering how we can justify blocking a whole /16 as a proxy, it seems a bit extreme. Our policy seems to me to relate to Open/Anonymizing Proxies, and these do not necessarily fall into the category. Am I missing something in the policy? — billinghurstsDrewth 14:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not uncommon and not outwith policy. See Wikipedia:Database_reports/Range blocks for plenty more. It's like this: all the IPs in that range are servers located in a data centre in Texas, registered to "Rackspace Hosting", and used as proxies. Most are web servers, many are fully open proxies, others are just anonymising proxies. All are voluntarily and optionally used as proxies; users on unblocked IPs have a choice not to use them. Of all the IPs editing in that range, all I can see is a spambot, a proxy-using BLP troll, and a dental spammer. In fact I have also blocked 50.57/16 under the same policy and for almost exactly the same reasons. I don't make blocks like that without careful consideration, and any genuine unblock requests will always be given good consideration. If you have an example of an IP in that range that is not being used as an anonymising proxy, I'm willing to hear about it. -- zzuuzz(talk) 14:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That first referred page is a results page, not a policy page. If it is becoming our common practice, then we should be updating the policy to reflect the practice, not having undocumented policy/practice drift. The stated reasoning is in your head, and not available to others. Maybe we can get some special documentation in your user space to support those sorts of blocks and then wikilink to it. Such a practice gives some more rigour, and robustness to the process, and then if there are any exceptions then we are better placed to discuss, have a reasonable evidence base, and then also to annotate exceptions. Then we probably need to get the practice aligned with policy, or approval to broaden the policy to align with the practice. If such server farms are that problematic, then maybe it should be handled at the WMF level and get the stewards to block and annotate the ranges that you identify. Thanks for your consideration. — billinghurstsDrewth 15:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would maintain that this block and the others I've pointed to have been established practice and documented at both the blocking policy and the open proxies policy for years: "Open or anonymous proxies may be blocked". I don't see the WMF or stewards doing anything useful about it. The block templates provides a reasonable enough explanation. -- zzuuzz(talk) 16:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a proxy on that range that is being used abusively, and no collateral damage from blocking the range, then this would be fine. That seems to be the case here. Prodegotalk 17:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Zzuuzz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Zzuuzz. You have new messages at TheGeneralUser's talk page. Message added 14:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hello, Zzuuzz. You have new messages at TheGeneralUser's talk page. Message added 14:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Last year it was OK to nominate the Google article for deletion. Don't see why we're bound on this day, which is after all less than one percent of our time here.Jasper Deng(talk) 03:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between disrupting readers' experience while joking around, and joking around. →Στc. 03:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not much to add, there's also a huge difference between XfD and speedy deletion. -- zzuuzz(talk) 03:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Zzuuzz. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. StevenZhangDR goes to Wikimania! 02:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
94.158.107.76
On MediaWiki.org, I've blocked this IP for a year as an open proxy because I saw your own block of it on this wiki as an open proxy. However, it does not appear to be accessible from my place.--Jasper Deng(talk) 05:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to sell a car, or limousine rental, no? I am currently blocking a rampant spambot or two, which this appears to be part of - so it is more of a zombie, or generally bad IP than a typical open proxy. This can be said of many of my recent blocks - some as proxies, some as anonblocks. Some may want blocking on other wikis - many do not. -- zzuuzz(talk) 05:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was posting spam in Russian on MediaWiki.org, and did deserve that global block.--Jasper Deng(talk) 05:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
207.28.45.254
Thanks. It had come up as blocked when I checked the contribs. Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a similar subject
You might want to keep half an eye on this subject. Looks like the link was placed by a number of IPs - I must have bumped into it somewhere else to have requested the report. Cheers --Herbytalk thyme 08:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Technically it is not my block as I was just adding a template :) If it was mine I'd suggest allowing account creation. -- zzuuzz(talk) 16:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, funny - Sorry about that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP block
Yes I would like the bock on both my account and my IP address lifted (I'm not sure if this is where to ask). I think I have a strong case for review, given that there is not a single instance of spammer or illicit activity in the Contributions list of either my account or my IP address. A family member's laptop was infected with a virus and we use the same wifi, but my laptop was not (we had them checked, they are fine). There is nothing wrong with my IP address now, and there is no evidence that it did anything to wikipedia even before we got that other computer fixed. i'd rather not wait two months, particularly given that no damage was done.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
With this irritating server lag I couldn't figure out what else this cat had done--I figured it was no good but only saw the first edit, on ANI. No doubt this is someone we know. Thanks for blocking, Drmies (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proxy block on 88.198.0.0/16
I've got an unblock request from an editor on this range. It looks like the proxy block is a few years old, and on a significant range, could you please confirm if it's still necessary? SeraphimbladeTalk to me 05:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
?
This is not reasonably vandalism. What am I missing? Nobody Ent 13:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clearer. It's obvious from the list of contribsbefore the request on Dave's page. -- zzuuzz(talk) 13:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So trolling -- are you thinking sock? Nobody Ent 13:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be several socks and open proxies involved in the complaint. Yes, this is not a new user. -- zzuuzz(talk) 13:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
throw-away account. you have any idea how many public online video game parlours there are in Singapura? ten thousand, easy. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really interested in that, Jack. -- zzuuzz(talk) 13:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's best to remove, not strike, indef/banned users comments, so I've done so on ANI. Nobody Ent 13:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove the semi-protect status from my talk page immediately. Thanks. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. No. Please ask another admin, using WP:RFUP if you like. -- zzuuzz(talk) 17:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages
Dear Author/Zzuuzz
My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on 2007 Bernard Matthews H5N1 outbreak. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on [email protected]. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance.
Hydra Rain (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
(I am copying the following from User talk:189.148.186.149 This is an unblock request. I am the editor at this IP address who has been blocked, as well as the subject of the entry being discussed: Douglas Anthony Cooper.)
NOTE: this issue is of crucial importance to the animal welfare community. I know that this fact has been contested, but the argument demonstrating this fact has also been erased. In short: having been both blocked *and* censored, I am in no position to make my case. I am happy to do this privately, via email, if that helps. It is important that this be judged by a completely independent and neutral Wikipedia editor: NOT JohnDopp or Qworty. In fact, as Zzuuzz has been involved in my efforts to remove this entry in the past, I'd like him/her involved. (Note that Zzuuzz has never in fact supported my request, or taken my side in any way, but I have been impressed by the editor's neutrality.) Furthermore, when this discussion has concluded -- whether or not the entry is removed -- I would like all of these public conversations to be purged. Many of them constitute slander. (And I note that JohnDopp has succeeded in having all conversations regarding himself purged. Which is entirely appropriate. I am simply requesting the same courtesy.)
This discussion will be entirely civilized and neutral, I assure you. This situation is very serious, however: it is profoundly contrary to the ethos of Wikipedia to a) denounce someone publicly and b) then block him, and censor his efforts to defend himself. Especially when it concerns a profound political issue.
This is obviously an unfolding situation, but I'll say a couple of things. 1) We will carry on as normal. We are very used to this. 2) I believe your view is represented in the deletion debate. No matter what gets added to the debate, this will be considered by closing administrator. 3) please just don't edit for a while. Your point is made. You are under a block, theoretically, and it's not a block I'll disagree with without persuasion. 4) I will look at cleaning up the mess when we're finished. 5) refer to 1). Speak to you later no doubt. -- zzuuzz(talk) 08:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Re: 4 -- please insure that ALL of Dopp/Qworty's slander is erased, including all of the libel on the COI page, "peacock" slurs in the edit history, etc. Thanks...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.181.165 (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for blocking that IP that was vandalizing stuff, including my talk page! Anonymouse321 (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Anonymouse321. It's no problem. -- zzuuzz(talk) 09:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
87.97.157.121
Hi, I'm confused by the link (http://87.97.157.121) you provided in your comment at WP:AN. When I click on it, it takes me here, I have no idea why; nor do I see anything informative about the IP address at the Piwik website. Assume I know next to nothing in your response. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had a proper look, but we probably will at WP:OP. I'd block this one with the duck test. Most IP addresses don't do what this one does when you put http in front :) -- zzuuzz(talk) 17:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cooper controversy
First, I understand you are an admin. I am not. That means you have the technical capability to see things (deleted stuff and all) that I cannot. I've been engaged in the douglas Anthony Cooper controversy. At the SPI, you recommended dismissing without action. At ANI, you said you observed "little wrong, or unusual at this time," despite reports of everything from personal attacks and harrassment to meatpuppetry and socking. Was there something you can see that I cannot that influenced your opinion? (If you did see something, I'm not asking what you observed.) Your comments seemed somewhat odd to me, so I wanted to ask. --Nouniquenames 06:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've probably seen most of what's happened here, and I believe you're not missing much due to lack of admin tools, except my involvement with something many years ago. I always ask for evidence when it comes to reports and stuff. And when it comes to evidence you have to decide what to do with it. I've given my opinion so another admin can take it into account making up their own mind. My involvement will be obvious to anyone looking into it, and I've reached the conclusion of taking no action. As for normal, this is a new off-wiki dispute colliding into us as usual. For an off-wiki dispute on wiki it is relatively trivial in my opinion. By the time the latter ANI thread started it could have all been over (of course ANI is completely the wrong place to start a thread if you don't want to get banned). The article is unaffected directly by the dispute, only improved. Blocks for further disruption could be handed out from this point onwards, for further disruption, as indeed they now have. There has not been a long term problem. Anyway, what some may like to see down one end only I like to see down both. "I'm going to vandalise your wiki", "zomg admin he's going to vandalise my wiki", "delete plz". There are allegations about meatpuppetry. This is not unusual. It's all accounted for. And my question is, so what. There are continued risks of POV pushers turning up, libel of the subject, and other off-wiki phenomena, but otherwise as I said before, it's all over. -- zzuuzz(talk) 07:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zzuzz, I'm not privy to the details of the past drama, but I believe you're right: this is a tempest in a teapot, largely thanks to Facebook drama spilling over onto Wikipedia. For the moment, Cooper's meatpuppets have given up on their campaign to push his POV and drive off other editors, the article is improved, the key troublemaker has been given the boot, and we're back to business as usual. We can deal with future violations if and when they surface. So, if the admins choose to close the SPI and put this nonsense to rest, I don't think anybody will lose any sleep over it. Now, as the complainant in the SPI, is there something I can do to help resolve things (e.g., withdraw the complaint)? -- JohnDopp (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, heads up for more incoming drama. [1] -- JohnDopp (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Zzuuzz: as I say, I consider you a neutral editor. That said, even the most neutral editor can be blind. I genuinely hoped you'd be able to deal with JohnDopp within the context of Wikipedia, but since you've failed to get your house in order, I've had to intervene. If you're incapable of understanding this editor's appalling conflict of interest, even after reading this, then I have little hope for Wikipedia: http://huff.to/SRMXth "Wikipedia Cuts on the Bias"
Yes, this has spilled over into the real world. And it will grow. I understand you may feel the urge to ban me for life: I'll live. Meanwhile, your lifetime ban of Larkin Vonalt is pretty much the most repulsive abuse of process I've encountered, here or anywhere: it's the sort of thing I associate with a kangaroo court in Guantanamo. You should be ashamed.
In fact, this entire process has been a disgrace, from start to finish.
It's sad when people don't want to understand. Funny, too, when the link includes backhanded praise from someone else who didn't really understand all that went on, nor why. --Nouniquenames 03:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some people underestimate the crushing power of the wiki. I'll address one persistent point. You (DAC) say we can't understand conflict of interest - in fact we deal with COI editors all the time. As you may know, we even have a guideline and a noticeboard for it. The problem is not the COI, it's what you do with it. Could JohnDopp have been malicious when tagging the article - of course. Could he go around with his friends attempting to add POV everywhere, yes. Our job, my job, is to ensure this doesn't happen, and that even when it does it doesn't affect the wiki. We are very good at it, and you're right to have faith in the wiki process. You lot were all sized up the second disruption started and many times since. And you've all been given the polite treatment. But as I said before it's what you do with it that counts. Now I don't really want to hear any more about this. Tell your friend that a block comes with instructions for getting it removed. Douglas Anthony, as ever, get in touch if you have any future concerns about the article. -- zzuuzz(talk) 09:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One last issue, and I'll happily lay this to rest. You note that, "it's what you do with it that counts." What JohnDopp/Qworty has managed to "do with it", apart from successfully having his enemies banned, is to carefully sew slander in the article history, the COI page, the deletion talk, etc. All while having comments about him successfully erased. Please remove the libel.
JohnDopp had nothing to do with that. User:Qworty removed a few peacock phrases from the article; there is no slander/libel there. Ishdarian 18:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look: Qworty and JohnDopp have worked in tandem throughout this -- whether or not they are the same person. (There's every reason to believe that they are -- note that Qworty has disappeared.)
Regarding the comment: "the link includes backhanded praise from someone else who didn't really understand all that went on, nor why." The praise is not backhanded: it's full-throated support for Wikipedia. Read it again. (Nouniquenames: that you of all people should talk about a lack of understanding is comical.)
Meanwhile, Zzuuzz, please deal with this. You insist you've been one step ahead of JohnDopp/Qworty from the start, but the fact is that as long as his slander remains in the talk pages of Wikipedia, he's a good three steps ahead of you. To recap: he's managed to have every negative remark about himself redacted or removed. He's managed to have a perfectly innocent editor banned from Wikipedia for life, for the crime of demonstrating JohnDopp's flagrant COI (and no, I sense she's not going to get on her knees to beg her way back in). He's managed to insert slanderous statements into various talk pages, with impunity.
"You lot were all sized up the second disruption started." This is clearly not the case. JohnDopp/Qworty has in fact played you like a violin.
I am asking yet again: please remove all of the lies about "self-promotion", "peacocking" etc.
And if you think this has no bearing on the quality of Wikipedia, I urge you to check the edit history for the article on the "Humane Society of the United States". JohnDopp has edited that one article 41 times. Despite insisting that this isn't, you know, his area. So, yes: this COI matters. Deeply.
Qworty hasn't disappeared; he's still editing. He cleaned up an article and went on his way. I don't see any slander, but if you could provide diffs, I would gladly take a look at it along with zzuuzz. Also, an editor has taken JohnDopp to WP:COIN to see if there is an issue with his editting. Honestly, I'm not seeing any wrongdoing. This is a non-issue right now, so my advice is to just disengage and don't bring ay off-wiki conflict here. Ishdarian 05:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where would you like me to send the collected slander? Perhaps I should email it? The comments will fill at least a couple of pages, and it would be counterproductive to post them here (needless to say). As for JohnDopp's COI: I'm glad someone is finally looking into this matter.
Well, you could post them here, that way it can be deleted after review and keeps everything in the open without being too visible. Ishdarian 06:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that your request is a bit humorous: that I collect every slanderous statement made about me, and *republish* that slander in a public place? (That said, I may well. Give me some time to put it together.) 189.148.171.180 (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Douglas Anthony Cooper[reply]
Okay, done: I've posted the collected slander/insinuation where you suggested. 189.148.245.39 (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Douglas Anthony Cooper[reply]
I foolishly neglected to include the most serious slander: from the deletion discussion itself. Now added.189.148.179.35 (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Douglas Anthony Cooper[reply]
Okay, I am in fact now happy with the way things have been managed. The deletion discussion was the most protracted and artful attempt at libel, and it's been hidden. You can now erase the Collected Works of the Slander of Me that I posted on Ishdarian's talk page, as per his suggestion: "Well, you could post them here, that way it can be deleted after review and keeps everything in the open without being too visible." Thanks all. (And it's nice to be on the other side of the ban. Exile is depressing.) 189.148.176.122 (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Douglas Anthony Cooper[reply]
Thanks for taking the bold step but leaving the stuff on practicalities and history. If more revision is needed to the actual text or structure of the entry, please add to the talk page. In fact, if you could help by archiving some or all of the contents of the talk page, that would be great. Ca3tki (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Main Page RevDel
Hello Zzuuzz, I noticed you RevDel'd a revision on the Main Page talk. You hid both the content and the username. You also hid SineBot's revision which added content. SineBot also says the name of the user in it's edit summary however. Could you please hide SineBot's edit summary as well? Thank you! Vacationnine 21:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, Bsadowski1 got to it. Vacationnine 21:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TheGeneralUser(talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello Zzuuzz! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser(talk) 12:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection
Hello. Thank you placing protection on my user page and for identifying the troll as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive. As I am now a target for this person, can I ask you to protect my talk page too? I am perfectly happy to converse with genuine editors about anything and I welcome constructive criticism which helps me to learn, but I will not tolerate trolls. --Old Lanky (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and if I may say, watch your mouth near the admin boards. But then that goes for you all. It would probably be appropriate to let the ANI thread take its course, since my view may differ from a couple of views previously expressed and hasn't received much comment since. As far as I can see this user is subject to ban, and all its deprivations. I haven't looked too closely into who you are. I haven't seen any allegations of policy violations and without those I am not really interested. You'd tell me if you were hiding something though, wouldn't you? -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I want is to write about railways, cricket and football in peace and without being harrassed by troublemakers. Thanks for the good advice. --Old Lanky (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's the deal (other offers may be available). One more edit on your talk page from a banned user who has read this message and I'll semi-protect it indefinitely. That's not forever, by the way, it's just like a really really long time. -- zzuuzz(talk) 11:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's very good of you. Thank you kindly. I reckon he'll be back, looking at his past record. All the best. --Old Lanky (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note re: an old block
Hi Zzuuzz. After reviewing a UTRS request and consulting with User:X!, I've unblocked the range 89.238.153.0/24; apparently there are no longer any proxies there. Just mentioning this to you in case you want to double check, since it was originally your block. Cheers, Yunshui雲水 06:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know. I hope someone has confirmed it with someone credible at the admin/office of "openhosting.co.uk" itself. There were about 17 IP addresses in that /24 range used as open proxies, and nothing else. Some individual IPs are still blocked. I have also blocked 89.238.154.0/24, 89.238.165.0/24, 89.238.169.0/24, and 89.238.170.0/24, and I'll bet the other admin you'll come across (if you look at the individual IPs) blocked a few more as well. HTH. -- zzuuzz(talk) 07:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've left all the other blocks in place for now - the UTRS request actually came from a single IP within the 89.238.153.0/24 range (89.238.153.10, which was apparently reassigned to a school about six months ago), so I can't speak for any of the others. If you see fit to reblock some or all of the IPs in that range, please go ahead; you've got way more experience with proxies than me. Out of curiosity - I unblocked the entire range because X! indicated that there were no longer any proxies operating within it, but if there had been, do you know of any way to unblock a single IP within a rangeblock? Would it be a case of undoing the entire block and then re-blocking the ranges on either side of the innocent IP? Cheers, Yunshui雲水 09:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked too closely but it's plausible. I'll leave you to judge and unblock others as you see fit. An individual IP block will override any range block or global block, eg. see 72.29.65.254(talk·contribs·block log). One would normally allow account creation and leave a nice message about logging in if you know there are multiple users of the shared IP. One also has to watch out for hosts which would be reassigned within a short period, such as those which switch IPs every few months :) You will have to make the IP block shorter than the range block. IPBE may be a better solution for individual users on potentially dodgy IPs. -- zzuuzz(talk) 14:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IP Block
Hello, you have blocked from creating accounts the entire IP for a school of over 2000 students. While I understand there was vandalism coming from this address, I was in the midst of beginning a Wikipedia project in which four classes (about 100 students) were going to become editors to add to their high school's page. I appealed the block, but the appeal was closed, and I was not given the opportunity to respond. Is there some alternative to blocking the entire IP and preventing the rest of the school population from engaging in a collaborative editing learning experience? Is there a way for me to see the type and extent of vandalism coming from our school so that we can better monitor from our end? Jcarney 77 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Jcarney77[reply]
Hello, you will need to provide me with your IP address. There's usually not a problem with allowing account creation, but I'd need to see the details. -- zzuuzz(talk) 17:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The block is on 165.138.230.3 Jcarney 77 (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Jcarney77[reply]
I can't see an appeal. If you look at the block log[2], you'll see it isn't really my block as I was just adding a helpful template. You could try first asking the previous admin, whose block it really is, to allow account creation. -- zzuuzz(talk) 20:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Monsanto
I've discovered a website [removed] has placed on their front page "We are at war.. with no other then Monsanto.. Help us bring their corruption down by defacing their Wikipedia page which is LIES! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto"
I noticed you have rvv'd a few times on the page today, so a semi-protect might be in order. Funnyfarmofdoom(talk to me) 21:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. That would explain it, and the anonymous proxies. It's certainly an option being considered. -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help
Hi Zzuuzz, I just wanted to thank you for the help. Like the rest of the technical experts on the project, your expertise is very beneficial to the community and I thank you for volunteering to keep things running smoothly here at Wikipedia. I've marked the WP:FALSEPOS as resolved and don't think you need to do anything with the filter. Thanks very much for the help. 64.40.54.205 (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and you can now say those words again :) I really don't understand why you couldn't save your edit, but you're extremely unlikely to face the same problem again. -- zzuuzz(talk) 20:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating the filter, zzuuzz. I don't know the edit filter very well and I can't see filter 271, so this is a guess. The filter has to track if an edit was made, then warned, then made a second time. I am guessing it uses cookies to keep track of that rather than a variable on the server side. I don't have cookies enabled, so if that's the case it wouldn't be able to track if the edit had previously been submitted, so it would keep warning. Like I said, this is only a guess. Anyhoo, I appreciate the help. Thanks very much. 64.40.54.27 (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article Feedback deployment
Hey Zzuuzz; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zzuuzz .. I had already "supported" the unblock, or I would have done so myself. Much appreciated. — Ched : ? 11:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you for unblocking my account and taking the time to review my appeal. Evangp (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evangp (you unblocked)
Please note that Evangp (talk·contribs), after being unblocked, has started doing exactly the same thing that led to the block - creating short articles with weak references. I've tried to explain, [3]. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nuff said for now maybe. -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is kind of random, but I see that you just edited the "Administrator intervention against vandalism" page, so maybe you will have an idea what is going on with this. About 10 minutes ago I posted a request for a block of an IP that continues to vandalize an article despite repeated warnings. It appears that a bot removed my request from the page, but it doesn't look like any block has been put into place and I'm confused about what is going on. Can you clarify this for me? Thanks, Terence7 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes very interesting. I've seen this before and I'm trying to remember when. The two usual things to check are for range blocks and global blocks, but there are none here... -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You had an extra (invisible) byte after the last digit of the IP address[4]. -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying harder
Are you referring to the bare reference links or the reference itself? I'm having a hard time finding good references for my articles. Now that I know how hard this is I really appreciate the work done by others. Please reply on my talk page. Evangp (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
![link=User talk:Talk:<Structuration>#[Request for feedback outside of the formal RFF above]](./wiki.php?slug=File:Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg)
