User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 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.

User talk:Jogi.jewels

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents

More IPs are harrassing me. How about protecting my user talk page? Thanks,  Anchorvale T@lk  09:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)  Anchorvale T@lk  09:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MRYWikiWarriorOps2017

Please g-lock this account, I have received a message from MediaWiki on 'lorem ipsum...' two minutes ago. Iggy (Swan) 21:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's already locked, but I cannot lock accounts. Requests are made to m:Steward_requests/Global. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I locked them. Thanks for the notification. --Bsadowski1 21:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

This IP user just dumped a huge wall of text, of what appears to be poorly translated latin on my talk page, and signed it with your username. Thought you should know. - theWOLFchild 05:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, but he just dumped it back on, slightly different IP address, but obviously the same user. Not sure why he has chosen my page, or your username. - theWOLFchild 05:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks like Neil picked them up on that. This is My Royal Young. When one blocks weirdos, as I have, one sometimes get a weird response. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewolfchild: - I also have this latin wall of text with 'Seliph, Heir of Light' thing, I do not know why this user has only chosen a small amount of random users. One difference between me and some of them is that I am not able to block/protect things. It just happens that I was picked at random or the vandal has noticed that I've reverted some of the vandalism on pages, found from the contributions by ClueBot NG. Iggy (Swan) 10:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
and continuous updating of the LTA page. Read: WP:MOV. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that there is a user named 'User:Abuse Filter', which is used on meta.wikimedia.org. I think what it should do here is that if users are deliberately triggering a series of edit filters from the same IP address/range, the Abuse Filter user would autoblock the IP address/range for a certain length. Also, if a certain page received a large number of abuse filters triggered over a short period of time, the Abuse Filter user would auto protect the page for a certain length of time. This shows how many times Fire Emblem: Thracia 776 was affected by the filter triggering by 175.158.208.0/22 (My Royal Young) today (UTC time zone). This saves administrators of blocking the same LTA's and protecting pages from the same people. The trouble with that is I don't know who created the Abuse filter account. Iggy (Swan) 22:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I've attracted the attention of that sock drawer

Mind semi-protecting my talk page? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really at that level at this time. They've received a recent range block so we'll see how it goes. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So...

.. you are one

-- helper of

. THE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.7.144 (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really comprehensible now, is it? -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful translate of edit summary: German for "schmuck". LOL. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for this! Best wishes 82.34.71.202 (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for creating user page

Hi, My userpage was deleted because I was self-promotional. I am not blaming anybody but myself. I'm new here and the Wiki page Guidance for younger editors opened my eyes. Now I know almost everything what I should not do on Wikipedia. So now, I want my userpage and I am intended not to self promote again. So, I will be highly appreciated if you can give me the chance of having my userpage again. AhmedLutfeInam 13:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed Lutfe Inam (talk • contribs)

Hello Ahmed Lutfe Inam. I see you've had some problems with that page. What are your intentions? -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add some informations about me, that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed Lutfe Inam (talk • contribs) 13:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like your personal details and social media links? I think that's why it was deleted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, That's why it was deleted. But as I was a newbie, I had done those mistakes and now I will not add any kind of personal details and social media links and I will not be self-promotional again and now I really understand the fact. AhmedLutfeInam 04:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

OK here's what we'll do. You fully read up on Wikipedia:User pages and create the page at User:Ahmed Lutfe Inam/sandbox (or some other location in your userspace). I'll then take a look and if it's not inappropriate I'll ping some of the admins previously involved in order to resolve the protection. I'll then seek some guarantees that it stays not inappropriate. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My sandbox

@Zzuuzz: I think you protected it until 2019. How about shortening its protection?  Anchorvale T@lk  10:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Are you expecting any edits from unregistered users? You are welcome to ask another admin, and they are welcome to change it. Also, please consider my previous advice, about poking vandals. WP:BRI. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anchorvale: Do you see what I mean yet? -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zzuuzz: Yes, I see it.  Anchorvale T@lk | Contributions  08:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, so we expect no more edit-warring on IP talk pages. I guarantee it will only lead to more disruption, and disruption is not a good option. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP troubles

Hi Zzuuzz,

I see that you're active. Can you look into 65.110.23.61 (talk · contribs)? This IP persistently removes sourced content after being warned twice ([1][2]). Also violated the SCW 1RR revert rule. I suggest article be semi-protected as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See: 88.105.190.20. The article really needs semi-protection. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cropselim

I think that this account and User:Tamesbusby might be related. This account was adding a pornographic photo to User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil, and I see that this account was doing almost the same thing and to a templated page. Figured I'd message you and share my suspicions. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and that's  Confirmed. There's been a few this morning: Slappeves, Pithyscarf. One of our regulars .. range block time.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP

Hey, I see you blocked User:Premjeee. Another IP undid your edit on Oshwah's talk page [3] so they are probably evading your block. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and there's no doubt it's banned user User:Nsmutte. Unfortunately it's quite a dynamic range, and the IP has probably been reassigned already, so I'm not going to bother blocking it. Welcome to whack-a-mole. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, my least favourite carnival game. Should I take it to AIV or should I just keep reverting? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There I've issued a quick block. Whack-a-mole may follow, so semi-protection is the next obvious step, but you could even leave it for Oshwah to deal with. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:CBAN for My Royal Young. Iggy (Swan) 00:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baffert/ Zito

Thanks for fighting the vandalism on Bob Baffert. Unfortunately it looks as though the same vandal has moved on to Nick Zito. Just thought I'd let you know. Tigerboy1966  09:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. They're probably going to move on to somewhere else now. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now moved on to Eight Belles & D. Wayne Lukas. Differernt IP but obviously the same peron. Alerting WikiProject Horse racing. Tigerboy1966  03:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Electric

Hello Zzuuzz. This thread may fall into your area of expertise: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#2001:470::/32 block is way too wide. I have no opinion myself on whether the block is too wide; I am just on my guard whenever I notice that an IP comes from Hurricane Electric. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gah (sp?). I'll drop Coffee a notification, but won't get to look at this for at least a day. An interesting block log... -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CBAN for Krajoyn

On Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I have started a discussion of a potential CBAN of Krajoyn which you might have been involved in.

The discussion is linked at WP:CBAN for Krajoyn. Iggy (Swan) 19:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doitordontdoit

The latest "good-hand" Iniced sock. Sro23 (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm good. Now there's someone who's in two minds about things. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxy question

We've had considerable trouble over the last year with re-additions of promotional content by IPs to Remy Blumenfeld. Virtually all of them have been blocked as open proxies. It has recently started up again. Is there any way of finding out whether 223.189.17.142 and 223.180.3.39 are also open proxies? See also: The comment here followed by this. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think not, though I'll confess there are some open proxies around that network which I haven't fully figured out. However both edits from the same ISP in the same region suggests to me that you are looking at the original paid editor on their original network. Hopefully they've had enough of their proxies being blocked ;) but the content also suggests it might be a different paid editor with the same intent. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! My own impression was that these new IPs and the now registered user (and paid editor) who claims to have edited under them is a different person from the article's creator, who clearly had a close connection to the subject but may not have been paid. After that person created Remy Blumenfeld, he/she went on to create articles on his mother, father, younger brother, house, and the architect of his house! I also note that these new IPs all resolve to India from which many paid editors come, but it is a highly unlikely location for the subject or his close associates. Anyhow, the article has several watchers now, so there shouldn't be any more shenanigans. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism (Tagalog Wikipedia)

Hello, your user talk page on Tagalog Wikipedia was vandalized and I was reverted it. This IP 175.158.211.225 is continuing contain Lorem Ipsum. --Cyrus noto3at bulaga (Talk to me) 01:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

31.53.27.129

Hello could you revoke talk page access from them. They are continuing to use their talk page for trolling purposes. Sakura CarteletTalk 20:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for your recent work at A People's History of the United States and Howard Zinn, it is much appreciated. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You blocked all of my accounts. I am going to sue you now and Wikipedia. I have a right to do as I wish on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.199.59.8 (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You've been misinformed. You have the right to do fuck all. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waste of effort Talk:Main Page

  • I'd just let them embarrass themselves on the world stage. Beats trying to fight them to no avail. Let us point and laugh at the fool. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Hi Zzuuzz, you seem to be a friendly editor. Thank you for your helpful attitude towards the page Simone_Butler. The main problem has been a user ilbogod as you can see they have set up a user account with the only intention of constantly harassing the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ilbogod . this is the kind of user who will keep starting new accounts to only disrupt an intended page in my opinion. They have displayed behaviour of disruptive editing with demeaning comments in explanations and harassment .If this user has a connection with the page subject in real life I suggest they deal with it and not harass on wiki.

many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tea Bow K (talk • contribs) 10:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Tea Bow K. I agree there is a suspicious focus from this editor and the other instances in the article's history. The article is currently nominated for deletion. This is an acceptable thing to do at this time, and you may wish to comment at the nomination page (regarding the merits of the content not the editors). While this discussion is open the notice on the article should remain in place. As a result of the discussion the page may be deleted, or it may be redirected, or it may remain in place, but what we won't have is the subject being trolled. I hope you appreciate Tea Bow K that not everything that was previously in the article really belonged there - influences and endorsements being two examples. What is important is information which can be attributed to reliable sources. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dun goof'd...

I applied an indefinite block to Cooldude9812 due to the... very nice message he left for Widr and noticed that you had done so too... I overwrote your indefinite block and I am sorry. I just wanted to message you to let you know. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was applying for the edit before. It's no problem, thanks for noticing. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you-

Many thanks for your help with the IP block; I have asked the business who updates my computer to check for Trojans, etc. and hopefully this will be done tomorrow. In November 2017 I was hospitalized for a blood clot in my leg and had to go to a rehab center. For over a month my computer was turn off and at no time did I access a different computer for Wikipedia, e-mail, etc. When I return home I turn on the computer for the first time in a month. I did get notice from Wikimedia if I was using a different computer elsewhere and I said no-it was the same computer. I hope this information is helpful. Thank you-RFD (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandyrandy sockmaster

Hi there. Is User:Vandyrandy a sockpuppet of User:Wikinger? Some of the recent account names and edit summaries used made me think that they were possible socks of INeverCry (also see his sock list on Commons), but the contributions of JotCeVauDe, another behaviorally-linked sock, makes it seem more likely that they may all be socks of User:Wikinger. The Wikinger sock, User:JotCeVauDe has significant behavioral overlap with 3 other recent socks of Vandyrandy, as seen here in the UnderArmourKid SPI. Some of JotCeVauDe's cross-wiki contributions on Meta-Wiki suggest that the socks could belong to Wikinger, as seen here [4] [5]. In addition, these 2 edits [6] [7] (The second one is from a Vandyrandy sock) are just too similar to be a mere coincidence. I'm not sure, though. On that note, can you please rangeblock the underlying IPs of Vandyrandy and JotCeVauDe, if they haven't already been rangeblocked yet? Thank you. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandyrandy (+socks including Gameraddixt2 and Masteroceanwaves3) is not Wikinger, however JotCeVauDe is Wikinger. I'm pretty certain of that. But I haven't seen an older sockmaster for Vandyrandy. Though I'm open minded I honestly don't think there is one. It seems to me that Vandyrandy has been reading through LTA and SPI wondering who they'd like to impersonate, which, coincidentally is also what Wikinger does. But Wikinger is not easy to impersonate. Vandyrandy is currently sufficiently range blocked. Wikinger is not usually easy to entirely rangeblock. HTH. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I searched through the range contribs (I've dealt with some of those vandals before), and it seems that the IP range has been abused for at least 2 months already. It's possible that other vandals might be using the range, including some Neo-Nazis. You might want to consider extending the rangeblock, or applying a 3 month rangeblock if it ends up being abused again. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UAK SPI

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but can you possibly drop by and close up/resolve the "UnderArmourKid" SPI pages? I don't feel comfortable leaving those SPI cases lying out there anymore, given the fact that 3 different LTAs were impersonating him within the last 2 months. I get the terrible feeling that someone is scanning the SPI case pages at the SPI log. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
message For reverting my embarrassing backlink mistake on the main page! Thank you! User:SuperTurboChampionshipEdition

Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_enGga5QV3ncOIe1&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting closure for proposal

Hello Zzuuzz, I'm requesting a closure for a failed WikiProject proposal: Gnosticism (2nd nomination). Thnx! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special:AbuseFilter/287

Okay if we disable Special:AbuseFilter/287? No hits in quite some time. Kind regards — MusikAnimal talk 16:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MusikAnimal. The risk of making one minor formatting fix - suddenly everyone thinks you're the expert :) Just joking, I am totally unfamiliar with both the filter and the content. It looks expired and tired and I don't see why it shouldn't be disabled based on the quality of those few hits. On the other hand, DQ re-enabled it last year so I suggest if anyone that is who you visit next. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! Yes it would have been helpful to review the history of the filter =P I'll go ahead and disable it and let me know. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 19:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A certain LTA

Hi there. Do you happen to know which LTA the sock Lustergemstones belongs to? I asked a Steward on Meta (who had Locked many of the LTAs I recently reported), and they didn't know who this sock belonged to. I was thinking that it might be Incorrigible Troll, Tamara787, or someone else I had recently reported. It would be extremely odd if it was some completely unrelated vandal who just decided to attack me out of the blue. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is definitely the user known as Vandyrandy. The revdel'd abuse is both predictable and ignorable. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So much for his apology. I guess we'll see whether or not he actually decided to quit vandalism within a few months (after the block expiration dates). LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please check for sleepers on the underlying IP range? He threatened to return again, didn't he? LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spam categories

Can you please salt the stupid, good, and AssH0les categories? I have a feeling that the spammer LTA will attempt to re-use them in the future. (The other categories that he had created should be salted as well.) LightandDark2000 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've salted the stupid category. There's a potentially unlimited supply of stupid and previously created categories - I'm not going to salt them all. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CU boomerang

Or the "see you" boomerang, or colloquially, "See ya!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Not urgent - TNT❤ 22:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock

Now My beautiful art of s0ckpuppetry just showed up - can we get a rangeblock or something? Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I see you already blocked them, thanks. According to the global lock on The Fuerdai System, this is "Willy on Wheels". Home Lander (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like that account does exist but it's been blocked for a long time. Home Lander (talk)
Zzuuzz, are the IPs used for creating these socks suitable for a range block? -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It might take a few attempts and some collateral. Chuck any new ones at the SPI and I'll see what I can do. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a favor for Lizzie Cundy

good morning from Coreca, I'm writing to greet you and know how you are, I'm pretty good for now, I saw this article and I thought I'd give it a hand. I was wondering if you could possibly refresh the article, maybe updating it a bit. Then if I can do something for you, ask quietly, I will help you in Italian and its dialects. a greeting from Calabria and see you soon!--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thanks for fixing WP:AN! I was trying to fix it myself, but ended up rollbacking myself because I didn't realize I'd gotten rid of the message that person left. I tried to do an undo to fix it, but I think I probably clicked undo right after you fixed it and did a null edit because my edit didn't conflict with yours and also didn't show up in the edit log. Hmm. Anyway, thanks! Purplewowies (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry!

We'll strike again! 122.173.172.124 (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'll get locked out again. Is it more complicated than that? -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Zzuuzz can you revert this IP's edit? This above IP is a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiexplorer13. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the much-needed pointer. As I'm a bit distracted can you point to something relatively conclusive? -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lingam article can be edited by only admins now.
What do you mean from conclusive? The IP is a sock of Casktopic, who is in turn sock of a Wikiexplorer13. Casktopic made an edit which is being restored by these IPs.[8] As you know that generally SPIs are very slow especially when CU is declined or unnecessary. We are having that situation here. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a time-saving device. SPI is slow because we're all busy, and I am having that situation here. Thanks for the useful example. I will also take a quick look through the SPI before changing anything. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Zzuuzz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC). 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.

Home Lander (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Zzuuzz you are the best. OK, one of the best. One of the very best of the best. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could offer a bit of oversight on my ANI

Apologies if this is not the ideal/correct medium of contacting you. The user Hijiri 88, has gotten himself involved in my ANI (viewable here) and has made a number of accusations and assertions that I feel are unhelpful, not in line with WP's principles and are generally obnoxious. While I accept being at fault for a number of edits I made and the manner in which they made; I feel bigoted assertions about my nationality, topics of previous talk page discussions, unsubstantiated assertions about my beliefs and conspiracy theories are irrelevant to the discussion and would damage the ability to have a fair judgement regarding my ANI. When you are available, would you be able to offer your opinions on this ANI as well as judge if Hijiri 88's comments are legitimate points for an ANI? Brough87 (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Zzuuzz, when that "ANI" become a proper noun meaning "a thread on ANI"? I know it's not new; it's a usage I never quite favored. And is it simply a metonymy, or an abbreviation, or is there more to it? Drmies (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see your ANI and raise you an SPI, an NLT, and a NPA. There's no denying Wikipedia is just full of bad jargon and misused acronyms - though VSCA is still one of my favourite made-up terms. @Brough87 I've read the ANI thread and I currently take the view that too many cooks etc. I will follow the thread and may yet comment if I see a need. There are indeed some unsavoury insinuations, but you seem to be doing fine. This is a curious removal of categories which needs to be addressed, so my own view would be somewhere along the lines Collect has proposed - this is probably something you should informally volunteer to refrain from doing, and I'd advise you to not to fall into the ANI trap of attacking other editors - ANI is a brutal and merciless place. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Zzuuzz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC). 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.

theinstantmatrix (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting Special:Contributions/92.4.230.110

The IP is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shingling334, who, since his usual IP-range (Special:Contributions/92.22.144.0/20) has been blocked for three months is now using whatever other TalkTalk ranges he can find in southeastern Essex, this time this IP, before that Special:Contributions/92.3.109.209, and so on. The IPs he's been using lately are unfortunately too far away from each other to make a rangeblock possible, though, so all that can be done now is to play whack-a-mole, but since he's easy to spot it isn't much of a problem. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Talk has a fascinating IP assignment strategy, with a very limited number of small ranges in each area which appear more diverse than they actually are. Just saying' -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shingling geolocates to Ipswich (they have mentioned it themself, but it's also evident from their usual IPs) during most of the year, but relocates to Turkey and (Northern) Cyprus during the summer, and also frequently edits from Colchester and thereabout. In case you happen to know more about TalkTalk's IP-ranges. Ponyo also has some information, I believe, since she made a number of rangeblocks about a year ago. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naming discussion

Hello. Regarding Parsons Green bombing renaming, there is another similar article that I think has a bad name, as I've explained here Talk:Green Park tube station bombing. I'd love to get your opinion on this as well. --Gateshead001 (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOV

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.

PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 16:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For being a sensible administrator who doesn't appear to issue nonsensical blocks. We need more like you! PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 16:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shingling334 ...

... has found a new IP-range: see Special:Contributions/92.3.97.69 (TalkTalk, Essex as usual...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to report him too. The same region and the same POV, changing the place of origin of some food products from Ottoman Empire to Turkey. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A similar edit was made on Rakı by an account created the day the latest SPI on Shingling334 was closed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Range blocked. The account is inconclusive - there are some dissimilarities and knowing this place as I do, I'd imagine it's a common type of edit. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The account was actually created a few hours before you ran a CU on Shingling334's socks as part of the latest SPI. Hence it was expected to be unrelated. Thanks Zzuuzz. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind talking a look at 2405:204:5485:52C0:44EA:BEDF:9C33:1016 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? Repeating the edits on Iskender kebap soon after the IP above got blocked. I've seen v6 IPs from Bangalore making typical Shingling334 edits before, so I suspect it's an open proxy. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And one more suspected proxy: Special:Contributions/103.242.110.79. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's a coincidence, Favonian might be interested in the followup ;) -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very much so! I shall await the inevitable fallout. :-/ Favonian (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless Shingling334 has suddenly spawned a number of clones this is another one: Special:Contributions/176.223.130.251. He used proxies the last time his operations were severely restricted by range blocks too, resulting in a considerable number of proxies being blocked... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He will with all probability soon switch to IPs in Turkey and Northern Cyprus, BTW, because that's where he has spent the last couple of summers... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block conflict

Block conflict! Wheel warring! [9] The apocalypse is upon us! (I won, tho'.) Bishonen | talk 23:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

FYI

--JustBerry (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duke and Duchess of Sussex

You have entered a note on the Meghan Markle page, saying you were tempted to "close the discussion" (not sure what that means as it was not a formal "Move Request" or anything). But maybe a note at the top of the section containing that discussion would help to explain to users why this issue has become stalled. I'm afraid it looks like Wikilawyering holding up the possibilty of making a move. Secondly, there is no similar admin comment at the page which has now inexplicably been moved to simply Prince Harry. The two naming questions are of course closely linked, not least because the move "back" to simple "Meghan Markle" looked like a POINTed response to the discussion going on as to whether the Duke of Sussex's name should be Henry or Harry - which suddenly became resolved by dropping the Duke of Sussex part altogether which was not any part of the debate. The whole thing is a mess as the two moves which would normally follow normal practice in such a case, are stalled and neither of the talk pages contains an explanation, nor a link to any ongoing discussion. Presumably the lack of a link is deliberate (you don't want "ordinary" editors interfering in the review). But it would be helpful I think, if there was some sort of statement saying the question is on hold until xx date, and saying what will happen at that time, would mean everyone gets the situation and that any move discussions will start after that point in time. Or whatever is the case. Maybe that "statement" could be either at the top of the two talk pages (where we would normally find notice of a rename/merge proposal) and maybe also box up (or I suppose archive) the various completed discussions for the present. If you have any reply for me I will find it here. Thanks, Sussexonian (no connection!) Sussexonian (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In reply to your first point, I made an unusual admin action taking no action, which is why I made the statement as I did. I could indeed have closed the discussion asking everyone to move along and refocus elsewhere, if there was anywhere better. It was a section which was heading rapidly downhill so I simply wanted to (try and) set some boundaries for it. And I do tend to think the move review has enough irrelevant noise to not point more people at it, as evidenced in that very section.
A summary notice is an interesting idea, but I don't have one to hand. I'm not sure it's strictly necessary but explanations are often good to the extent they are available. However it needs to consider the wider context. The move review for the Duchess will probably close soon, and probably with a result which doesn't change the status quo. It's not worth pre-judging the close or what will happen after. Then we have the wider issue that you mention. There is all sorts of talk currently around questioning our entire naming convention policy, at least in terms of UK royals. I'm unsure whether this will be tackled on each individual page or at some other location. There is further talk of just waiting to see what reliable sources eventually say, and it's difficult to put any specific timescale on that. So as far as I can see the dust is still settling and people re-grouping. People are mainly waiting for the move review to close. Then I can imagine the discussions will spontaneously continue at some place as they do. But this is not an easy thing to explain in a simple summary without the benefit of foresight. This might be an issue to raise on the relevant talk pages, but I would still wait for the move review to close before anything. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LTA muttering to itself

I found this open proxy that has been used by Wikinger and I decided to report it after reverting his recent edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.46.7.240 (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinger is pulling his usual Sméagol/Gollum act. I've blocked the IP for a week, but it's probably a proxy requiring more enduring treatment. Favonian (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! A steward has already blocked it globally for a year. Favonian (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's some very strange people about at weekends. No sleepers, but you may still find my recent blocking log interesting. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's by favorite reading. Wonder if it should include this person? Favonian (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another hive of scum and villainy :/ Watch that space. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good heavens! Thanks for blocking all those wormholes. At some point, the other socks and vandals must get really upset. He causes all those useful proxies and colocation webhosts to get closed for "regular" business. Favonian (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cooperative agent 841

Their username and edits make me believe it's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis, since he's been ranting about an imaginary "Bucksham Co-operative" for several years now, an entity that he claims includes User:David Beals, which is interesting since many of the socks that were blocked as belonging to Beals with all probability, per WP:DUCK, weren't Beals but Evlekis... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rev del of block log

Hi Zzuuzz! I hope you're having a good Sunday :-). I saw that you restored the username to the block log of that... *cough* account just now ;-). Log entries need to have the performer's username redacted along with the action and target in order to render the log entries hidden to the API and the UI. Else, users will still be able to pull the information using the API, and the notification that appears with the red-ish background (when you see the user's contributions, etc) will still be visible to users. This applies to all logs (creation, block, deletion, etc). I just wanted to message you and let you know why I redacted both pieces of information - it's your call if you want to hide it again or not ;-). Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... it looks like removing just the log details from the block log makes it invisible to users with the UI (I tested it just now)... I'll need to run a test with the API and see if it can be pulled still... will update you when I do this... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation of why you do that, because I have been curious. The only true way to get rid of the username is by Steward, think Special:ListUsers, so it's all just sticking plasters until they're summoned. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to remove it, everything posted was made up. 77.223.143.41 (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. It may or may not have been incorrect, but it was not entirely made up. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You're correct; they typically do this with global suppression or by renaming the user and hiding the logs - I've seen both methods used like that over the years. I'll typically have usernames that expose personal identifiable information suppressed after I hide all of the logs involved (makes their job easier since all they'll need to do is flick the suppression switch on). So... I ran some API tests, and it appears that in the case of block logs (I haven't yet tested with other log types), we only need to hide the log details and it won't be able to be seen by non-admins via the UI (i.e. on the contributions page) nor will it show up when non-admins query the API. It will show up and with an empty "actionhidden" string element present if we pull it (which is weird that it's a string... you'd think it would be an integer set to 0 if unhidden, 1 if rev del'd, or 2 if suppressed, etc... whatever...). Something must've changed somewhat recently with all that; I ran these exact tests with event logs awhile ago and the way I've been hiding the logs is how I found that they needed to be redacted in order to hide them from some UIs and APIs. Anyways, figured I'd update you... thanks for changing what I redacted - I wouldn't have ran those tests and found this out if you hadn't ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another update: the above does not apply to new user logs or user creation logs - those must have both the action/target and the performer's username redacted in order to fully and properly hide the log entry from visibility to non-admins (or to non-oversighters if being suppressed). Not sure about deletion logs or others... will test that next... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After running another round of tests, it appears that deletion logs (as with block logs) only need the action/target redacted in order for it to be completely hidden to non-admins or non-oversighters. Thanks again :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stratford upon AvON W*EELS

The two accounts now has been globally locked, the case should be deleted as G6 per WP:Deny or merge it? SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(tpw) I went ahead and G6'd it because there is little point in wasting the time it would take to merge. Also per DENY. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PWCola

And they've started up again. I asked for the SPI not to be closed. Do we need hundreds of separate cases? DuncanHill (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer not to have hundreds of separate cases, however, when checkuser is involved there is an issue of keeping track of where we've got to, who's been checked and who hasn't, etc. Anything a checkuser says can also get confused. For example if I say yes those accounts are all confirmed and there are no sleepers, and then another one gets reported, which may or may not be related, then it turns into a mess. If no one has replied then yes please do add to an existing report. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes sense. See Special:Contributions/MayonaiseInstrument. DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken out a couple more sleepers if you're interested. Unfortunately a nice effective range block is not going to be an option here. Just add any more that turn up below if you like. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DuncanHill: Look like his main account should be User:RJCola. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special:AbuseFilter/877

TonyBallioni said revdel'd edits may not show up in the filter log, which I was not aware of. I assume you are monitoring this filter... can you confirm there were multiple edits revdel'd or suppressed today? Because I swear I saw the hit count go up, but nothing is in the log. I just want to make sure the filter is working properly. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 22:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SQL confirmed this for me. So all good :) Sorry for the noise — MusikAnimal talk 23:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal: [10] I've added a note. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cottonwood

Hey there, I saw your request to merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2BCottonwood but it looked to me like it would have been tedious and of little benefit, so I deleted the page instead. If that mucks things up on the CheckUser side of things, let me know and I can undo it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me. There relevant information is probably already elsewhere anyway. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UAK returns

@Zzuuzz: Hello. The LTA vandal UnderArmourKid has returned, this time using the IP range 190.100.144.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log). Can you please Rangeblock this range for at least 6-12 months, and also check the range for sleepers? This range has been abused repeatedly by this LTA for more than 3 years now, and I have seen some indications that this IP network in particular probably belongs to a public school. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism at this time is extremely limited, and seems to differ from any previous ranges. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's used it before (browsing through the range contribs back to December 2014 will reveal a pattern of vandalism). Also, if this range is left open, he's going to figure it out and accelerate the rate of socking and vandalism, as observed in the past. I'm not 100% sure, but after sifting through some of the edits, it looks like this might be a School Network, which if true, would warrant a 1-year-long block. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We can tackle that when or if it arises. At this time there's far more collateral than vandalism on the range. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zzuuzz/Archive_33&oldid=1145829401"