User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 13

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.

Oooh a shiny new bit!

info - cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 208.109.125.16

I was fascinated to see that you had blocked this IP address after only one act of vandalism. Do not misunderstand, though, because I am not here to complain or question your actions. Indeed, I believe that this is only the most recent IP used by a concerted vandal who has a habit of leaving the same sort of hysterical edit summaries. I compiled the following information last week:

UUNET Technologies, Inc. Virginia 63.3.10.1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.3.10.1 63.3.10.2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.3.10.2 63.3.10.129: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.3.10.129

ethii.com Dhaka, BD 67.228.101.165

Bluehost Inc. (74.220.192.0 - 74.220.223.255) Utah 74.220.207.141: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.220.207.141

America Online (range: 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255) Virginia 172.129.132.93: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.129.132.93 172.130.64.126: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.130.64.126 172.130.206.222: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.130.206.222 172.132.38.142: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.132.38.142 172.133.220.188: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.133.220.188 172.136.1.133: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.136.1.133

All of these IPs have edited the American Civil Liberties Union article at one time or another in the past 3-4 months, and all have used the same style of edit summary. In addition, the majority of them have also edited articles related to Nazism and the Occult, and/or articles on Jewish and Israeli figures (generally leaving anti-Semitic edit summaries), and/or articles on Stalin and Pol Pot. The style and content of the edits and (most indicative) the edit summaries indicates this is the same individual or (less likely) a small group dedicated to disruption. A look at their contributions will bare this out. I would be very interested in seeing your response to this information. Quite frankly, I have been somewhat at a loss as to what to do with it. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. 208.109.125.16 is an open proxy, and these are regularly blocked on sight. I notice that 74.220.207.141 is also probably an open proxy[1] (but I haven't yet checked fully). They at least are probably the same person. I expect some of the other non-AOL IPs are also open proxies. I'll try and look a bit closer, watchlist a few articles, and block or semi-protect where appropriate, but I should probably warn you that blocks are not generally useful against either open proxies or AOL, and semi-protection is not so useful where a wide range of articles is affected. On the other hand, semi-protection of an article of central interest to the vandal can make the vandal very bored. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response. I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, but the finer points of blocking, open proxies, etc., is still somewhat foreign to me. I am not in a position to second guess your suggestion. All I knew is that this individual's intentions were very bad, and he was operating in secret---how he is doing it remains a mystery to me. Semi-protection of the ACLU article has been discussed in the past, as can be seen on the talk page, but nothing ever came of it, to the best of my recollection. That would seem to be in order. Thanks again for your time and efforts. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, your blocks are beating my reports to AIV

nice job. This has been ongoing for a while now. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User creation

Since I see you also patrol user creations, I thought I'd let you know that long german sounding names should be blocked onsight. I've confirmed with de.wiki that its a long-term vandal from there, migrating to en.wiki. I caught 2 of his accounts last night, but one got through in the last hour or so. Just an FYI. MBisanz talk 23:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Any examples? -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Entlinktstinkt wie ein ganzes Jauchefass!, User:Entlinktstinkt nach Körperschweiss, Kot und Urin!, User:Entlinkts hat in die Hosen geschissen! are the accounts I caught so far. MBisanz talk 23:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your revert

Thank you for your revert. Would it be possible to add some semi-protection to the talk page for a while? We have a history of the anonymous IP user coming along and vandalizing the page. Fnagaton 20:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Semi-protection on talk pages (especially such a busy one) is really only a last resort, and I'd like to wait before considering this option myself. However I will keep an eye on it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Fnagaton 20:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. FYI The two offending edits have been deleted with oversight now. All seems quiet now. Fnagaton 21:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just deleted some similar edits from your userpage, and then protected it. You may want to ask oversight to look at the deleted history of your userpage next time you contact them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I spoke too soon it seems. This edit has just appeared. And another Tor user on the project page. Fnagaton 21:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOSNUM

Thanks for your help earlier. However, User:NotSarenne is just creating new accounts now to be disruptive. I think he will settle down in a while. Do you have an incrementally broader block to handle this? Greg L (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very broad banhammer. Semi-protection is in place on the article, so we can just knock the socks off as they turn up. That last account was created six day ago and blocked on sight. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do your job and protect Wikipedia from mercenaries like Greg L and Fnagaton. Do not believe a single word these guys say. The evidence is all over the place. Read the edit history. Read once, read it twice. It's not that hard. It's your job. --22:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.216.243.2 (talk • contribs)
Which part do you expect me not to believe? -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you be able to protect MOSNUM with a block against unregistered and newly registered editors for a few days? Greg L (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already done. These accounts were created six days ago, so can bypass the semi-protection. They get blocked instead. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like we have another potential Single Purpose Account that was created around the same time which has suddenly started to revert all my edits. Could you please look into it when you have time? PS. Ahh yes, the user account has suddenly started to contact other editors who are involved at MOSNUM, clearly another sock. Fnagaton 18:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely a sock. The user has just added this edit to my talk page referring to previous attempts to add my personal information to edits. Fnagaton 18:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a sock at all. I only have a single account. This is my new account. Fnagaton is the terrorist here. --Multiplexor (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And has now started to post attack edits on MOSNUM and is repeatedly reverting my user talk page. These socks are really easy to spot aren't they? :) Fnagaton 19:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just read his comments clearly. Every single word is a lie. It's Fnagaton who reverted his talk page to get my comment removed. I don't use sockpuppets. I never did. There's no need for me to lie. Fnagaton uses sockpuppets through Tor and lies. All the time. --Multiplexor (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more sock puppet evidence. Fnagaton 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That made me smile. Thank you. --Multiplexor (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The writing style, choice of articles to edit, article edits, method of operation, and the message points made here by Multiplexor make it clear that this is “217.87…” (and likely also User:NotSarenne), who has been indefinitely banned and has a history of being consistently disruptive and extremely uncivil. Greg L (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, an obvious disruptive sock, now blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Tor user is back again. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X86_architecture&diff=211626718&oldid=211626240 Fnagaton 09:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goggles

Hi. You reverted some vandalism on Goggles that I kind of miss. "fart fart fart" etc. I actually laughed, reading that. Such innocence! --Una Smith (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we block too many schools for it to appear regularly, then again perhaps not. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...

i dont no what every1 is saying about me having sockpuppets, the only thing that happen in the past is wiki logged me out and i didnt realize so i was editing from my ip adress instead of my account but other then that this is the only account i use. USEDfan (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent news. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, you keep blocking me

i dun like you ur fat and ugly, oh ya are u going to block me for this dumb i thought so. you suck! go screw urself!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatman0123456789 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More NotSarenne

Would you mind with one more instance of User:NotSarenne. User:Wittiams (Contributions) is up to it again on MOSNUM and is a slick little bastard. He came close to getting me blocked (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Greg_L_reported_by_User:Wittiams_.28Result:_.29) and (my talk page). Greg L (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the block. In your post on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Greg_L_reported_by_User:Wittiams_.28Result:_no_action.29, you stated that you blocked the reporter and that “it is clear that this was clear to Greg L at the time of the reverts.” I am unclear. Did I do anything wrong? Do you think it was clear to me that Wittiams was blocked at the time of the reverts (???) or that I knew he was a sockpuppet of NotSarenne at the time of the reverts? If the former, please respond on my talk page. If the latter, just here is fine. Any advise you can give on how I could better handle situations like this would be much appreciated. Greg L (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter. If you are reverting a banned user it always helps to say so in edit summaries, as you did, and as you described on the 3RR page. Compare: If you were just blindly edit-warring beyond 3RR and only realised afterwards that it was a banned user, you might still be blocked under the 3RR rule. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks again you for your help. I realize now that when dealing with vandals in sheep clothing, I must use cool-headed edit summaries that very quickly give administrators a quick “aha!” as to what is going on. Greg L (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Again

Well i was thinking of saying thanks about blocking the open proxys i reported to WP:OP then i noticed that you also reverted some vandalism on my user page so i thought what the heck. This is a very big thanks to you Zzuuzz. I hope you keep up the good work! ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 22:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James E King Page

Hi I was just about to warn user: CanadianLinuxUser and 24.115.224.185 about 3RR. Please be advised that user 24.115.224.185 was vandalizing earlier today by my records and my own talk page. I dont think CanadianLinuxuser is necessarily biting a newcomer here. Though both users have certainly past the 3RR. Id fill out a 3RR myself but i dont know the process exactly. Take careOttawa4ever (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silverblack81

Unblock Silverblack81. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 56.0.143.24 (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Silverblack81. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classicaio is a sockpuppet

Zzuuzz: User Classicaio (contributions) is another sockpuppet of User:NotSarenne/“217.87…”. It has all the trappings: a new account that with “six-day seasoning” so it’s not a new account, and the very first edit is on a hot-button issue that is of importance to 217.87… Would you mind placing an indefinite block on this account? Is there an easy way to find others traceable to this same editor? I imagine it would be quite hard; I figure he’d make one or two a day on a routine basis. Please also advise if there is a different way I should be handling this. I am not terribly experienced in matters like this. Greg L (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Checkuser may be able to find other sleeper accounts from the same IP or range. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you I know neither User:Classicaio nor User:Wittiams. I have nothing to do with them. I, User:NotSarenne, was blocked under the false assumption of being a sockpuppet of User:Sarenne. I only picked the account name after repeatedly being accused of sockpuppetry by User:Fnagaton when I was making anonymous edits. I never used Tor. I never used multiple accounts. I don't know User:Sarenne at all. Since then I've noticed quite a few accounts getting blocked as "sockpuppet of User:NotSarenne". The truth is, a few of these were accounts that I created one after another - after getting blocked again to be precise. I wouldn't have created any other accounts but blocking the complete sub-network of my ISP leaves me with only a few options. Many of the blocked so-called sockpuppets, like the two above mentioned accounts, have nothing to do with me. I don't know who they are. Many of them were blocked for very little, things which clearly didn't justify indefinite blocks. Several other involved accounts behave exactly the same, if not worse, but they are not even admonished. The point isn't that it's unfair. The point is, this behaviour of the involved admins doesn't make any sense whatsoever. See also [[2]]. --202.120.139.211 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:OP verified users list

Okay, here's the results. 58.59.2.130 is an open proxy on port 8080. 123.232.9.185 is slow, but is an open proxy on port 8080. 195.141.92.196 is a Tor node- whitytor02. 72.159.131.254 appears to be a zombie proxy- Project Honeypot says there's a comment spammer on that IP. It's a BellSouth IP, though, so it may be dynamic. Did I pass the test? :P Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for PP

It was getting hard work on this article Killara High School BigDuncTalk 12:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Bored schoolkids eh. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to look up open proxies

Hi Zzuuzz. Thanks for the info regarding the IP who appeared to be a Jvolkblum sock. Is there a way of looking up an IP address that you suspect to be an open proxy? EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That particular one required a fair amount of experience to confirm for certain, it's not something that can be easily looked up. I suspect the last user of it was an unconnected vandal, but I don't know enough about Jvolkblum to know for sure. Certainly some of the previous edits were by Jvolkblum, and I've noticed a quite a few other open proxies making related edits. One giveaway open proxy edit was the one to Lar's talk page,[3] but again that requires some experience to spot. The best indication of an open proxy, but not usually enough to warrant a block, is a simple google search. For confirmation you are welcome to ask me or list them at WP:OP. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The revert

Thanks for the revert. Would you object to either you or me changing the block to a week for block evasion? I looked at the WHOIS, and I believe it's an IP sock related to this sockpuppeteer and their socks, which I've been dealing with a lot recently. Thanks. Acalamari 22:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection but this.. it seems they have probably had another IP within the last 12 hours and will probably have another within the next, which means someone else may get that one. However please adjust as you see fit. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about that: I'll leave the block and just tag it as a sock instead. Thanks again. Acalamari 22:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Test explanation...

At the time I checked, I physically connected to both proxies on port 8080, using Firefox, which I confirmed using [ipchicken.com]. The Tor proxy was checked using the Tor checker on the Toolserver. As for the zombie, since it's a comment spammer on Project Honeypot, most likely it's a compromised computer. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. I also have Nmap and Tor installed, so I'll use those as well. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Checkcloud99

Checkcloud99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by you a few minutes ago as a vandalism-only account. While I do believe in harsh treatment of deliberate vandals, yadda yadda, I also feel this was a bit strong. They'd only made two edits. Obviously the one to the IP user page (I admit probably theirs, so you could take that IP's contribs into account, especially the Beer edits) was plain juvenile, but the one to Beer was just silliness. They weren't defaming, defying blocks, violating NPA, adding copyvios or even rescinding on their final warning (they were only warned once, by me, minutes before they got blocked). A little too heavy on the banhammer, perhaps? Good job otherwise, the block just struck me as rather sudden. Do let me know if there's some backstory I'm not aware of regarding this. Thanks. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I believe this is almost certainly the same vandal evading their block. Indeed I believe I have blocked this vandal dozens of times before and also that it may be the banned user Random-5000. In addition to the history of Beer, see [4], [5], [6], and [7]. I am open to persuasion otherwise. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see, carry on. That would be the backstory I was talking about. Cheers! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect information

Thanks for following up on my answer about moving a page to its redirect at the Helpdesk - I didn't actually know that now, if it's just the redirect and it only has that in its edit history, that you can move the page over it! So, thanks for giving a fuller answer, and for enlightening me with that fact. -- Natalya 14:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RD/M

Thanks for resetting the protection. I was just going to do it myself. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

You beat me to it by 30 seconds! (I got a "Undelete failed; someone else may have undeleted the page first" error message.) Thanks! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No fun

When you are around - you always beat me to them :) Thanks for the work - cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many, you must be slow :) I hope you're checking on other wikis. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Short on time at present I'm afraid - bring on global blocking then we can relax some! --Herby talk thyme 17:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi There ZzuuZZ,

I have received a message stating that some of my links i have added do not comply with policy, thank you for the note. I also noticed that my entries to the main articles have also been removed, might i enquire as to why? The reason for the links that have been added are they are the source for the relevant documents (in covenant, deed and title matters), although indeed it is a corporate enterprise.

I hope to hear from you soon james —Preceding comment was added at 16:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Links to sites which primarily exist to sell services are routinely removed. Unfortunately your competitors and others have also been spamming us relentlessly, and their links removed many many times. See the external links guidelines for more information. How about contributing content to this free encyclopaedia instead? -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Dear ZZuuzz,

thanks for the reposnse. I do appreciate your comments but i must note you seem to be rather over zelous in your actions, you have also removed the contributions i have made to the english law sections covering title, estate and related matters; this would be considered contribtuing i am sure!

james —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthecod (talk • contribs) 10:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk header templates

Do they really need to be full protection? The user who maintains them is not an admin. David D. (Talk) 05:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. They were being heavily vandalised by a large number of 'ripened socks on proxies' so semi-protection and blocking was useless. The full protection was not intended to remain forever, but I would suggest that it should probably remain in place for a while. I've also put two Avril images on the badimage list for the same reason, as they were not only making all the help desks unusable for hours at a time but also being used for vandalism on other pages. Feel free to take responsibility for removing them both at any time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem a little more clearly now. Obviously a very savvy vandal. David D. (Talk) 16:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Barnstar! Congratulations! Sluzzelîn hereby pins you with the NightFalcon’s award for having a “Z” in your name while at the same time managing to do lots of great work here on Wikipedia! Thank you for protecting readers and volunteers at the reference desks from useless narcissists. Feel free to give it to anyone else who is doing lots of good work while still having a “Z” in their name! Sluzzelin

Yet another Krabs sock.

Just wondering if it was possible to get a checkuser on Strongsauce21. He was recently blocked for vandalizing (not surprisingly) Bratz and creating fictional video games so he is most likely yet another krabs sock. Since his original IP was blocked is there a way to get this one checkusered and blocked as well? Thanks Strongsauce (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Strongsauce. I'm not sure if it's entirely necessary, but I may get something over to Alison at some point, as she is a bit familiar with the ban. I see open proxies. I'll begin the list of suspects here:

-- zzuuzz (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think I found another one,
Strongsauce (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That RfA is comedy. Those last two accounts match the contribs of 78.129.197.69, which I strongly suspect to be an open proxy. I've asked Alison to pop over for breakfast and a checkuser. No doubt there will be other Krabs socks and other banned users on those IPs. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you block Versace11 and Saruman20 if they are indeed the same people? They seem to be "edit warring" or mass editing Superpower, and Potential superpowers. Strongsauce (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy question

Hiya, just curious since I saw you blocked 64.27.16.202‎ (talk · contribs) for 5 years as an open proxy. May I ask how you determined this? I'm not challenging, just curious. Thanks, Elonka 21:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I hope this isn't too vague - I came across it while I was blocking some other proxies I came across (see my recent contribs). See [8] and try it for yourself for the determination part. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'll admit that though I'm fairly internet-literate, that proxies are not my strong point. I'm always eager to learn though! When you say "try it for yourself," what exactly are you referring to? --Elonka 19:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent you an e-mail. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

After seeing 200.19.176.45 (talk · contribs) make false edit summaries, I search this site for the link the IP spammed and come across 201.3.243.154 (talk · contribs), which you blocked. Hopefully these are the only IPs used. Spellcast (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've probably blocked about 30 or so in the last few days. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the same site, it should probably be added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Spellcast (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not being used as a link so blacklisting won't help (but Google has proved useful). It's the same spam that hit the WP:RD/M recently. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I notice it's the fourth entry in the local spam blacklist. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well so much for the blacklist. It seems open proxies are constantly being used for this. I guess the best thing to do is to keep a watch out or block any OPs on sight. Cheers. Spellcast (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7x12.13.3x13.7x8

Seems to be quite determined to suppress a well-referenced matter.--SilasW (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bedford School thing? Yes it looks like undue suppression. On the other hand I think you could argue that it's given undue weight as it is. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxy blocking

Umm... if your open-proxy blocking is based off of WP:OP, could you mark the section on WP:OP with {{Opblocked}}? Then we at WP:OP can tell if it's blocked or not, so we don't overestimate the backlogs... And if you're not, I suppose I'll have to get Cobi to write a bot to mark them... Calvin 1998 (t-c) 04:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calvin. It's not. When I block OPs listed at WP:OP I do them in batches and I always mark them. I made a similar suggestion [9] last year. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:DirtyEuropeanSocialist

It was more than one link, the username is problematic in itself, and his personal attacks and socking after the fact aren't helping the situation either, of course. According to the username policy, we block usernames that have a clear and distinct conflict of interest or are clearly promotional. This one also has the additional pleasantry of being potentially offensive to boot. I'd be more than welcome to give him a {{2nd chance}}, but he's got to stop the attacks and socking first. Since I am, as the banner at the top of my talk page clearly states, on vacation, I'm not really able to actively involve myself in extensive reviews of cases that I believe to be good, or at least justifiable, blocks, nor do I feel comfortable logging into my admin account over what I know to be an unsecured connection. You're free to unblock him if you feel he is here to usefully contribute, but judging by his more recent conduct, I doubt he is. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 23:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes

I'm sorry I vandalised a couple pages. Honestly, I was just fooling around with a few friends. I'm an avid reader of wiki and have once or twice tinkered with a few pages where I feel that my input is constructive. Rest assured, my vandalising days are over. Now, if you wouldn't mind unblocking me, I'd be extremely grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.201.53 (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Hello. Thanks for lifting the block after 24 hours as promised.... I will be more careful in future, and think it best if I (try to) avoid those pages all together... Anyway, I just wanted to query the response by another admin to my third unblock request, which was declined for the reason "This request is too long. Please be more concise" [[10]]. I will admit it was a long request, and it doesn' matter now whether it was a valid reason or not, however I do not believe that this is at all a valid reason to decline an unblock request, and feel it is entirely unfair to not even bother to read it and yet still decline it. I was wondering if this is actually a valid reason... Sorry to bother you again. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, though I would parse this as "I cannot see a valid reason here". -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well he would have to bother to read it in order to come to that conclusion... Nouse4aname (talk)

Goatse

Sorry about that. I wanted to test the type of table coding that it uses and couldn't think of anywhere else to do it. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

65.31.34.185

FYI, I have declined an unblock request at User talk:65.31.34.185. It looks like that IP's hard block was due to expire tomorrow so I went ahead and extended it for a month. I don't have any knowledge of the history here nor any particular interest in the matter, so please feel free to reduce/extend/whatever as appropriate. --B (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A query to the ISP owning this IP address indicates that it is non-portable. Considering as disruptive as this editor has been (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hdayejr), I extended the hardblock to six months. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-portable means that no other ISP will get the IP, not that it will not be reassigned to a different customer. SORBS has this listed as a dynamic IP, and given the vandal apparently only used it for two days, I'm inclined to believe that. I guess we'll see how dynamic it really is. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed comment

Hi zzuuzz, would you mind re-reading the comment before you removed from Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Believe it or not I'm actually trying to help in some small way. 92.194.108.206 (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You can consider yourself banned and unwelcome to edit Wikipedia. You are not helping. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unwelcome or not, I'm still around. But I was just informing you that the recent Avril Vandalism is not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.137.71.139 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well fine, but that really doesn't matter now. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of vandalism to my talkpage

Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. And thanks to those who watch over this page :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If only the lulz really were epic... -- Flyguy649 talk 03:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

70.100.142.209

70.100.142.209 has been bringing back a revision with bad contents and has added a couple intense nudity images to the sandbox. --209.244.31.53 (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Strike-through text[reply]

Names of Census Articles

I have opened a discussion at Talk:United States Census, 2000#Requested move about renaming all the year-specific US Census articles. I see that you are active on the Census 2000 article, so I am requesting your input. -Rrius (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh

Someone is creating some traffic on the proxy bot by edting & placing {{blockedproxy}} on them when they are not. Someone playing silly ****? Etc etc - thought I'd mention it - cheers --Herby talk thyme 16:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Herby. They are normally blocked within an hour or two, for three years. You will see who's doing it, and that it's normally quite normal. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxies

Hi!

Sorry to distract you, but I've noticed that you've unblocked two of my blocks to re-block as an open proxy (I'm not objecting). I would be interested to know how you managed to get the domain names from the IP addresses, as the RDNS tool which I used gave nothing useful. I might then be able to find the open proxies a little more efficiently.

If you wish to keep this off-wiki, feel free to email me,

Regards, :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 22:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stwalkerster, no I'm not following you around :) 2 IPs - for one google is your friend (this is almost always the case). For the other try http://x.x.x.x -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 22:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pls indef and full protect my userpage and talkpage .

pls indef and full protect my userpage and talkpage . my talkpage should stay completely blanked. i just want to get this done as fast as possible since i'm now about to leave wiki indef and wanna get this done. thx in advance. sincere SomeUsr 01:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

done by another sysop. thx and bye. SomeUsr 01:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: 212.219.94.107

Yeah this was an OP yesterday (as seen from my talk page edit). I just thought the schoolblock template was a more informative message. I found out the school was an OP through 212.219.94.105:80. If you think the indefinite block is too much, I'll set a limit. Spellcast (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's my experience that you/we will soon get people from the school requesting unblock, so it's useful to have the details (especially as the block is on a non-open proxy). I generally think that indefinite is always too long. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I often see open proxies blocked from anywhere between 6 months to 5 years. How do you decide the length? Spellcast (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I use a special secret calculator to determine how long they will remain open, and block for that length. My experience is that the calculator usually overestimates. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may as well share this calculator with everyone. Anyway, I'll set a limit for the schoolblock as well as any other OPs I indefinitely blocked. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot

It's nice to see that long time active contributors are helped out when they have trouble, but don't worry, I found another way around. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so you did try to help me? I'll just assume Good faith on this one, take care :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:79.99.135.14

I have unblocked this user, I couldn't find any proxy to connect to when I did a quick portscan. You may wish to double check ;). Thanks! -- lucasbfr talk 00:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heh, thanks :D Weirdly enough, the rdns and the nmap didn't bring anything significant. -- lucasbfr talk 09:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Any chance of being granted rollback privileges. I have nearly 7000 pages on my watchlist and this would really help me with vandalism Thanks. Kernel Saunters (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian British

There were no real responses to the suggested move, and as there was already a article called Asian British (that redirected to British Asian), sorry I don't see how it can be moved. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to wait for more than two days, and preferably, consensus. Please use the process at WP:RM. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving British Asian page to Asian British

The British Asian talk page has not recieved much attention, and I believe it would be best if it is moved. Asian British is really the correct usage, and the only place where the term British Asian is used to mean a British person of South Asian descent is on Wikipedia. Would you be eable to help move it, as I do not how to move the article to a page that already exists, it would be much appreciated. Thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't believe that British Asian is incorrect or used any less than Asian British (see for example[11]). To move over an existing article requires an administrator acting on consensus. Consensus is achieved by gathering the views of others on the talk page, though the process described at Wikipedia:Requested moves. So far you seem to be the only person advocating this move, with opposition clearly stated, it is important to get wider input using this established process. You might also want to consider soliciting independent views from the Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board as part of the requested move process. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review

Search engine optimization has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclura cychlura cychlura

Can you explain taxonomically why you did what you did concerning:Cyclura cychlura cychlura and Cyclura cychlura? Thanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't think I can explain that taxonomically, but what I did was to reverse the copyright violation involved in your cut and paste move (see WP:CUTPASTE), and then I deleted the remaining redirect where you pasted the contents (leaving one revision pointing to the existing article) so that you can move the article properly if you so wish. As all the references in the articles used the 3-name version I was disinclined to make that move and merge histories myself, which is what I would normally do as the result of a cut and paste page move. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a copyright violation when it was my own work to begin with?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the only one to have worked on the article, others should be given their credit. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three bots that formatted some dates and one other editor who fixed typos? [12] Whatever dude!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zzuuzz/Archive_13&oldid=1142668751"