Jump to content

User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 28

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.

Hello..

Hello, I was thinking of being added to the verified users list. I believe I can reliably check IPs for open proxies and I think I've been around on WP:OP for awhile. If you believe I can do this, can you please add me to the list? Thanks either way, regards—UY Scuti Talk 14:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This certainly seems reasonable. Traditionally I apply a little test, comprising a few personally selected IP addresses. I hope that's OK. Let me dig around... -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Regards—UY Scuti Talk 14:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

OK UY Scuti, here's a selection. In each case supply some background information. If a block is appropriate, estimate a suitable duration. Take your time :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block, or no block?

Unblock?

Hi, should I also include a duration of the block (if applicable) while doing proxy checks? —UY Scuti Talk 21:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For existing blocks, this probably isn't necessary. For IPs which need to be blocked, this might be useful information. For example, some are obviously only short term proxies, while others have been and will be around for years. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it ;-)

I've been watching the new user creation log like a hawk and I was juuust about to report This account will be blocked immediately and Infinity to AIV, but you caught it first. Thanks for being on top of it :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

blocked Infinity? Quite right too.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Zzuuzz, I owe you many thanks, fist bumps, and pints of beer for your efforts at watching the AIV reports page, and for your agility with blocking the sock puppet accounts that have been repeatedly (attempting) to troll Wikipedia. Your dedication and attentiveness is something that many should look up to when it comes to becoming a skilled and intelligent editor and Administrator. I might run for RFA again this August; I hope that I become as good of an Administrator as you. Major props, dude. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for blocking the 4th troll. Winterysteppe (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.185.165 (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY for Supreme Genghis Khan

Just for the record, I've also informed JamesBWatson of this WP:DENY as he tends to tag the sockpuppets. We're not gonna tag anymore. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 10:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Yeah, unless new socks appeared. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@KGirlTrucker87 Accounts that are already have been blocked or globally locked there is don't need to report it anymore, see this diff to find out the CU admin User:DoRD as what have mentioned to User:Sjö for the tip. SA 13 Bro (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nipponese Dog Etc

Is back (again) = User:Max Alpert. Cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might check his page for that. KGirlTrucker87 talk what I'm been doing 19:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now quickly blocked which is a good thing. KGirlTrucker87 talk what I'm been doing 20:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've Got Mail!

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.

Funcrunch (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trollling IP

Could you look here? I lodged a file at AIV- but it's getting out of hand on 7+6=13's talk page. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 16:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Muffled Pocketed 16:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, apart from the obvious, the IP appears to be removing some unsourced cruft. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that actually 7+6 was probably wrong to put it back in- but of course, it was the way the IP conveyed his thoughts that drew attention to him!Cheers Muffled Pocketed 17:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Nephew

I'm asking to unblock my nephew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.150.177 (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know. You'll have seen my response(s). -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So unblock and that's an order — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.150.177 (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Fuck off. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope not until u hit the unblock button — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.150.177 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm no admin, but is there anything preventing you from blocking this IP? -NottNott|talk Notify with {{re}} 20:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incredulity? -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A little rangeblock

I've blocked the small range 66.87.150.128/25, also for 12 hours. Not sure it's big enough for the whole extended family, but the IP's used so far have been within it. Indeed, they've been within /26, but I felt ridiculous blocking just that. Bishonen | talk 21:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Well, it wasn't enough.[3] Never mind, now I can extend the range to a /23 (still very small), and I actually think it's time to make it a week. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

You've Got Mail!

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.

Funcrunch (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's back

[4] Sepsis II (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Now already blocked troll. KGirlTrucker87 talk what I'm been doing 00:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Dorfman

I'm looking at that Facebook page you deleted (https://www.facebook.com/david.dorfman.73); it doesn't contain "zero" information, but it does say "July 2, 1993" as his birthdate. And some of the other details on the page match up with other random facts about him on his wikipedia page as it stands, as well. Since it isn't a "verified" profile, is your issue with the source that it could be anyone/an impostor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmk2130 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see I have good reason to not trust FaceBook, because you see what I don't. My issue - the page contains zero information and certainly no dates. Second to that would be the issue of knowing who the information (if there was any) was written by. Can any Talk Page Stalkers help me out here? -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Facebook is never an acceptable source, but I could be wrong. Adam9007 (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen tweets and facebook posts being used to occasionally reference some things where a primary source is suitable. But my concerns couldn't be clearer - other than a name and the usual furniture I see no information on that page. It is a page with no information. That probably automatically disqualifies it, thinking about it ... but I'm always ready to be told if I'm wrong. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would a screencap of the page help so you can see what I see, or have you already disqualified it so that it wouldn't mean anything?Tmk2130 (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're wandering around in sub-optimal territory, with references for verification that say different things to different people. I'm trying to assume good faith of everyone involved so I'll take your word for it, but you can tell me exactly how it's styled - is it 2/7/93 or 7/2/93, or is it spelled out in full? Are you logged in to see it? And what is the label - Date of Birth, birthday, or something else? What I'm really trying to do here is stop the edit warring, one way or another, and that can only be done if everyone can agree what the reference says. Another reference would be ideal, or failing that, some assurance that this is not some imposter's account with either made-up information or information from Wikipedia. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It says "July 2, 1993" under "Born." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dorfman.jpg Tmk2130 (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm trying not to be cynical, but that really doesn't look very convincing does it? And I'm trying to understand how there are posts from 1993, and why there is only one post, which contains a date of birth. (?) -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. That's the way Facebook Timeline works. It puts things in years, and I guess because a birthdate is listed (If you click on the tab that has the birthdate information, it says so.), it says "posted in 1993." I can see your cynicism, though. Like I said, it isn't verified, but it's the only profile that seems to come close, and unless someone has an obsession with impersonating celebrities--though is he really a big celebrity anymore?--my first inclination is to trust it. Wikipedia may have different standards. Tmk2130 (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. I've seen a lot of fake stuff since I've been here and feel somewhat justified in looking closely :/ Wikipedia policy is fairly clear that this should be removed (indeed the whole article is somewhat in jeopardy), but I'll remain calm. Since semi-protection won't work, the only real option is a block on the edit-warring user who won't abide by policy and won't even discuss it. But I'll remain calm, for now. I might just full-protect the article for a while at some point though. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Blocked editor (from Talk:Jo Cox) vandalizing their user talk page

Posting disgusting & vile comments on User talk:24.205.141.90. Shearonink (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion on ip address

Hi, I've opened a discussion here about an incident from Thursday in which you had some input. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for rollback

Hi Zzuuzz, hope you are well. I saw your name on the Administrators willing to take rollback requests, so I decided to come here.

I have been reverting quite a lot of vandalism lately, and would like to use rollback to find and revert vandalism easily. I frequently patrol my watchlist and the recent changes log to find vandalism, and have looked at a preview of STiki and Huggle and they look really good for anti-vandal work, and would really like to use them to help with my counter-vandalism work alongside Twinkle, which I currently use to revert vandalism. Upon finding vandalism. I immediately warn users and if they persist after a final warning, report them to AIV. I know what is and what is not vandalism as well and will not misuse this right if granted. I have only been blocked from editing twice but these were both self-requested to help with exam preparation.

I have had a previous rollback request declined in December or January (can't remember which month) for not having a measurable track record and not making enough reports to AIV (at that time, I was quite worried TW would notify the user if reported, but I learnt that it doesn't), but since then, I feel as if I have overcome this, although i took three months off recently due to exams and asked to be blocked during that time, which have now finished. ~Thanks! Class455fan1 (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poo pants9183

This one might need a timeout with the TPA as well given their unblock requests. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamist terrorist attacks

Dood. Thanks. I've been looking for an online admin for like 20 min now. TimothyJosephWood 23:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I m here bro Nani12345 (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Welcome to Wikipedia. Perhaps you're looking for this other talk page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonator?

Special:Contributions/Zzuzz_(alt) Is this you? Sro23 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Emuerus impersonation block

Thanks for blocking Jo-Jo Emuerus. If you are wondering why I posted and monitored rather than immediately blocking it is because the impersonator's userpage had an "on the road" message. I thought it might have been our new admin's alt account. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon real admins would know better than to do that sort of thing :) but I did only block after the real user edited. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's very new and what with all the RfA hubbub, I thought he might have just forgotten about posting any alt account at his main. Anyhow, all's well... Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Account switching

My account has been switched, so could you please ban my old account and move all appropriate subpages. Thanks,--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (need to talk?) 22:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomandjerry211: Zzzuzz should do it soon but please consider asking other adims per WP:BLOCKME. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 11:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks KGirlTrucker81. I've done the block and left a message for the new account, Tomandjerry311, and bar a bit of cleanup the situation is mostly resolved. I'm hoping Tomandjerry311 can move the subpages themselves, and figure out what to do with their talk page and signature :) As it is they probably won't be getting any notifications. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa May edit war

Thanks for your messages. I'm sorry but I didn't read them until now. I hope you don't feel the need to take action but I in fact viewed the other party being as bad as me. For what it's worth I'm sorry if I caused you aggro. Quadrow (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for that revert on my page! Pax Verbum 20:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you're welcome. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP is back

You blocked IP 96.28.163.103 about a month ago. He's back and up to the same nonsense, FYI. Montanabw(talk) 05:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, NeilN has given him another well deserved break. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an eye out, he seems to have created an account name, also quickly blocked. But the types of edits this one does are so... weirdly hard to spot unless you have the articles watchlisted. But the Desormeaux articles seem to be a favorite target. Montanabw(talk) 06:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: I am having an interesting conversation on the user's talk page. Perhaps you have an insight into the confusion? -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he's a troll. (/snark). If you look at the links he posts, there is nothing in them that is relevant. I kind of wonder if this is another now-vanished user back to cause drama; WP horse racing has kicked out a few over the years. There is absolutely nothing to anything he says, it is either trolling for lulz or delusional bullshit. He has some sort of odd obsession with Kent Desormeaux. The reality is that all jockeys in the United States have statistics listed at Equibase, and his are here. It clearly lists his Kentucky Derby and other major wins, and, more to the point, it notes he won the Eclipse Award for leading apprentice jockey in 1987 -- clearly he wasn't riding racehorses at the age of two. I also have no idea why this user has an obsession with jockey Jose Santos and Funny Cide either (or Giacomo and Mike Smith). But I suggest you explain that he is not stating factual information and that you are no longer going to engage with him on the topic. Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And now we have learned a little more. I think I can rule out the delusional and misinformed options. It's not all a waste of time - I have learnt more about the troll and horse racing, and watchlisted more horsey pages than I would have thought possible. Thank you for your vigilance. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Animal people (and I do look in the mirror as I say this... or at least my reflection in my laptop screen) are a whole special breed of crazy. I don't quite know why this is, but over 10 years here, most of my worst edit wars and general "drahmahz" have been surrounding various horse articles (and a few spillovers into other animal articles). I've run into one or two editors in other areas who are close, but the real pros seem to be my fellow animal fanciers. Nonetheless, you may enjoy that we also cooperatively and in good spirits brought cow tipping to GA. Montanabw(talk) 21:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's b-a-a-ack: [5]. Can we discuss rangeblock? Montanabw(talk) 22:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that, is quite likely to be Jaredgk2008. Either way we'll need a checkuser to take a look. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Whyd you change my edit Ebola Bailey (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ebola Bailey. If you're looking for a place to describe your mates or call people ugly, you've picked the wrong one. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Profile101

Hi Zzuuzz, thanks for reverting the sock of Profile101. I think however a range block may be needed now as he keeps doing this from the 115.66 IP range. I was also thinking of requesting a community ban but he is in effect banned because no admin trusts him. Class455fan1 (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too familiar so would have to brush up a bit, but it looks like a large range. I'd say anyone who says what they said is de facto banned. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just took a look through and it seems it's the 115.66.2xx.xxx range he's editing from. Does that make the range any smaller? Class455fan1 (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Range would be 115.66.192.0/18, affecting 16384 addresses with a fair number of constructive editors. Latest Profile101 IP in this range was 115.66.228.213 -- samtar talk or stalk 16:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it looks a bit impractical at this time. Singnet is not only notoriously dynamic but also quite busy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Class455fan1: Rangeblocks were damage collateral ton of users and it won't work, semi-protection is the best efficient route. Take a look at this diff as Materialscientist have wrote. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that mean semi protecting all of the talk pages he vandalises? Class455fan1 (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was just a describe hint, the vandals case is different person. SA 13 Bro (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a wizard?

Because you seem to be able to tell the future - who's the IP playing in the sandbox? -- samtar talk or stalk 14:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a new one for me, though I've seen enough for today. The other one, check out my new page: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Sandbox troll. I think we're dealing with multiple cases of OCD. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, it started with 71.3.136.18 (talk · contribs · block log) - remarkable similarities with User talk:95.49.33.26 but a different country. Multiple cases I tell you... -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zzuuzz: Interesting.. do you think a short term edit filter might be useful? Being ambiguous, but perhaps geared towards the 2016 ranges and the troll's MO? -- samtar talk or stalk 15:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about that. Previously it was easy to rangeblock, but the ranges have diversified into these huge things (3 of them that I've seen). It would need to target these ranges, and sandbox resets (or blanking) either on a time-quota or based on the most recent edit to the page. I think it's a possibility. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Something like Special:AbuseFilter/773 but with a rate limit perhaps (and obviously expanded from that one sandbox)? -- samtar talk or stalk 15:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. I think we can ignore the 71.3.136.63 user for now, and want to accommodate 95.246.129.175 as well as 79.27.120.166. I've a change in mind for the last line also, as it's usually one of two things. We might also want to broaden the other ranges, or possibly eliminate them, as I'm fairly sure there's been a recent change to the ranges being used. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Samtar: I've disabled the filter for the time being. You're welcome to reuse it. I might create something ad hoc if the need arises. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Telegram

Hello, Zzuuzz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:24, 26 July 2016 (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.

-- samtar talk or stalk 16:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How could my protection request be rollbacked ? Also, reply on my Talk Page !

95.49.112.241 (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed almost all your edits get rolled back. Fancy a block? -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding sock accounts

More specifically the Incorrigible Troll account. Is there a general rule that known or obvious socks, such as this one, won't have their talk page access revoked? Only reason I ask is that they are back to their usual tricks with the "Blu Aardvark" account they created in requesting a new user name. Or am I just making a big deal over nothing? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule is that if they known to be timewasters they can do without their talk page. Some socks never bother with their talk page, and I had never seen this one do it, but now I have. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen them do it a few times before, that's why I was curious, seems to be it's MO. (Or adding a tag that it's a IT sock). RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then they shall have no talk page henceforth. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a suggestion especially vandalism-only accounts I think. Moreover, I have concerns about vandalizing talk pages, and should been rekoved per WP:DENY. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 18:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:TEDCRUZISTHEZODIACKILLERTEDCRUZISTHEZODIACKILLER is not blocked

Hello Zzuuzz, I saw that you reverted a report at WP:AIV about User:TEDCRUZISTHEZODIACKILLERTEDCRUZISTHEZODIACKILLER. You say that that user is already blocked, yet I checked their block log and user talk page and there was nothing about them being blocked. Just thought I'd let you know. -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the very last link at the bottom of their contribs page - 'accounts'. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS, if an admin does something like that, please wait for an answer before restoring. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Sorry about that. How come it doesn't show up in the usual places that block notices are? (and sorry for the revert) -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Admins have an advantage because they can see that a user is blocked instantly due to the blocking page, though there isn't always the details. Sometimes they are globally locked, but my guess in this case is they were blocked by an oversighter with suppression enabled (ie they were oversighted). -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse filters

Hi, because of an irritating AbuseFilter bug, we (Kaldari, MusikAnimal and I) are going to do an update next week that will affect some of your filters. We hope we'll fix all affected filters ourselves, but we're of course grateful if you want to help us. The issue is explained here; the current plan is here. In any case, we wanted you to be aware what's happening, and you're very welcome to help out of course. I'm sending you an email with more details. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User page protection

Hello. Thanks for deleting my user page, which I wanted to get rid of since I felt there was too much information about me in the history of the page. Would you mind restoring the protection of it too? The previous protection level was semi for editing and full for moving, because of a number of attacks by vandals and socks. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:OP

Hello! Given the insurmountable backlog in WP:OP, I have asked the IP editor to limit their reports. And I have decided to only check IPs that have some suspicious editing patterns or at the least have edits. Hope that's okay with you. I just thought I'd leave a note, because you weren't exactly happy with my declining to check when I started. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 16:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think IPs with no edits, no block log, no appeals, etc, and some of these huge ranges can and should be declined. There's simply too many that we need to focus on abusive IPs. This is rather different to the previous scenario. But thanks for the note. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Revision deletion

You know that 1. that what you saw was a RFC, but one that recieved little attention? 2. if the only reason for reverting a change to policy is the reason that there was not enough discussion before, you should not revert? --188.174.69.13 (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, policy demands consensus, not a lone voice in favour and doubts expressed against. Seriously, get it advertised. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:PGBOLD.--188.174.69.13 (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There have been specific doubts raised which are enough to indicate a lack of consensus. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Questions About Filter Block

On that filter block issue you were kind enough to respond to, can you please explain why it blocks a contribution when I write nazi in all caps rather than as Nazi with only the first letter capitalized as if it were a proper noun? Nazi is not a word, it is an abbreviation for Nationalist Socialist German Workers' Party, or Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. If anything should be filtered, it should Nazi. Are you sure that is the only reason the filter prevented me from posting my contributions? What are the rules of this filter? Who decides those rules. How are those rules reformed to better serve the will of the users of Wikipedia while avoiding repeated false positives? Wouldn't you agree that neither nazi in all caps nor N.A.Z.I. should be filtered out in this case? I can hardly imagine a situation where the capitalization of one word should result in the filter blocking several pages of material that took many hours to write, edit and cite. Can you give an example as to when that should be sufficient ground to block whole paragraphs of normally capitalized material? Is it not permissible to use capitalization to emphasize a word in a wikipedia edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.20.133 (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell it's the only reason for your edits being stopped. The filter you hit is one of our oldest, entitled "Vandalism in all caps"; the word (in this form) is commonly used in vandalism or as an offensive term. From what I can tell the word you used is not common (in this form) in English or in dictionaries, despite its origins. Filters are slightly dumb and can't always identify the full context of the offending word, but I can give you the example you're looking from the last few hours[6] (use your imagination for what it originally said). But I agree it might need to be looked at for this particular case. This is usually done through the page you made your report to. We can only usually identify errors if they're reported. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSD Log redaction

Thanks for removing that, there's a few others on the page that probably need redaction as well I'd suspect given this particular troll's MO. Is there a way to have this redacted outside of me doing it once the page is tagged? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It would probably be sufficient to just edit them out. I am asking at WT:TWINKLE to get a software solution to this obvious problem, but I'm not sure how far I'll get. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it never occurred to me until now how this could be an issue. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking User:WildcatCafe

@Zzuuzz: you forget to apply a block template on their talk to even know how to request a rename... Thanks for blocking however --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Done. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 20:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, however they would have seen the same message in the block message if they try to edit. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usual disruption

Hi zzuzz. Thanks for several reverts on my talk page and other places. I noticed that you blocked some of the IPs with the note "usual disruption", or words to that effect. You most likely already divined this, but for the record (and the TPSs) even though this character is reinstating some of the the deluded Neostrada user's edits, it's pretty clearly Wikinger who is bored and unemployed. It's one his pastimes, compare these "contributions" on Meta, which resurrected the latest hissy fit by perma-banned LouisPhilippeCharles, mingled with the characteristic, Lovecraft-derived muttering. Favonian (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The global block got rid of any confusion. There must be something in the water in Poland. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Vaz

Apologies to both you and Roger from American Dad -as you probably guessed I thought I was removing KV from the category not re-adding! Regards JRPG (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you didn't make much sense :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VPP discussion about terrorism

There is a VPP discussion about distinguishing between terrorist attacks and non-terrorist attacks, if you would like to participate. Parsley Man (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Sudetic

Zzuuzz,

Your edit to the page on me is totally acceptable to me and solves all the concerns I had. I thank you for this, but will be monitoring the page over the next few days to make sure the wording is not changed. If it is changed chronically, I will again demand the deletion of the article on me, as well as warn of other action. This was not a simple, vanilla issue. It was, from my perspective, quite serious. Thank you for stepping up. Chuck Sudetic.2A01:36D:106:B21D:DD37:8930:5895:CD6F (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zzuuzz. Thank you for inserting the word former in the article about me. It answered all of the concerns I had about the accuracy of the article. If Wiki goes forward and deletes the article completely and in perpetuity, it is absolutely fine with me. But your edit eliminated my objections to maintaining the article...so long as language referring to me as journalist and writer in the present day is not restored. Thank you again. Chuck Sudetic 2A01:36D:106:B21D:DD37:8930:5895:CD6F (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern for accuracy, and hope you understand that we also want to be accurate. I've had a look around some of our articles, and this is probably the only case of someone being described as a former writer. It might just stick, but I can't guarantee it. Just don't let anyone catch you writing anything henceforth :) Is there anything we could describe you as currently doing? -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fexty

Can you lock their talkpage down too? Up to their usual hijinxs.RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

180.172.204.71

180.172.204.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A death threat as well here Nice photo. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Styron111

Hi, thanks for blocking his latest sock puppet. Could you please hide his two revisions here? Thanks. Regards --Schniggendiller talk 23:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Which socker is this one? -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh nevermind, I see. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-) Unfortunately, he's a "regular customer" :-( I expect more like this during the next hours … Regards --Schniggendiller talk 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jhalak dihlaja templates

The show has notability, but whether each season should have it's own templates?

Created by a sockpuppet User:SahibCollege24 --Marvellous Spider-Man 09:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately (or not), we have precedent, created by another sock. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ref

Time for a rangeblock, Zzuuzz... Is this is a repeat offender? Thanks for the help; I was about to RD3 some revisions and saw you already took care of them. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a checkuser ;) It's the same user who got every refdesk protected earlier today. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--you're not a CU? For the love of God and Jimbo, will you PLEASE email arbcom-l and get your application in... Seriously. And hold on. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thought as much - all open proxies by the looks of it. The speed of creating accounts after a block is correlated to the size of the range (I'll call this zzuuzz's law). There's been a few socks around today, apparently User:Evlekis one of them, and possibly the most likely. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Junior5a" troll

Hey, just a heads up I've alreated the OS team to those edits that this troll is making to try to have these wiped off the server. Outside of tagging as fast as possible, anyway we can have this blocked from posting like and edit filter, or is that not really likely? (Or somehow a global block) RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Junior5a is not nice

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Junior5a is not nice. The saga continues... GABgab 19:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your dramatic and appropriate shortening of a section title in the Keith Vaz article, the length of which title was formerly ridiculous even by the frequently insane standards of this encyclopaedic work

Good work! Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed kind Sir or Madam DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered. Aided by his resignation, there's an interesting evolutionary aspect to it. I've only just realised how enormous your name is. You should get renamed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. ... and, well, I used to have a shorter user name but then became disillusioned, bitter and knackered ... :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access for sockpuppet

Hi Zzuuzz, would it be possible to revoke talk page access for Cennef? They are just vandalizing and harassing other editors. Thanks in advance. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USS Enterprise (CVN-65)

FYI, as I saw you protected the page, I created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rand Editor to get the editing pattern of these accounts investigated. Murph9000 (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's usually a problem when editors aren't internally consistent, and the IP is particularly curious. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Zzuuzz. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Our buddy Masai Giraffe may be back. See User talk:FrIeDaDawSen. Same pattern of editing to create bizarre inaccuracies that look plausible on the surface. Montanabw(talk) 23:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Thanks for fixing. I don't how it happened, but you fixed it before I could react. Glrx (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:I2padams

Thanks for blocking. Do admins have some way of blanket reverting all edits by a user? Meters (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback? Might be worth posting to ANI. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll post there. Meters (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need, Meters. I have applied WritKeeper's brilliant "rollback all" script, just look at how it's bloated up my contribs. Bishonen | talk 21:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. Meters (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must get me one of those! -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was just coming here to ask for some relief of trying to revert all. of. these. delinking edits... Shearonink (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick block. Dang that Twinkle unlink feature is a dangerous function.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikiOriginal-9/sandbox8

Can you undelete that. I need to check something. I'll give you a message to delete it once I'm done. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just undo my edit when you're done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Socks of IP you just blocked

User talk:69.114.241.118 and User talk:69.120.135.219 seem to be socks of the IP you just blocked, User talk:65.51.188.34. Presumably someone access to multiple network interfaces. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, unfortunately it seems to be dynamic parts of the same network. I got the impression the first one was a school. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps time to page-protect Sulla? Tarl N. (discuss) 02:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2601:1C2:4F02:F076:F021:FE59:35A8:A2AC

This IP has continued their problematic behavior at the sandbox past your warning for them... Just thought I'd give you a heads up, cheers. 73.96.113.91 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, they have received their block. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Zzuuzz. You have new messages at Zzuuzz's talk page.
Message added 20:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

FYI - thanks. Shearonink (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shearonink, interesting. I've taken the blocks on 206.211.34.0/27 and 206.211.35.0/28. It should cover most of the activity from this range. (ping Widr). -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback (2)

Hello, Zzuuzz. You have new messages at Widr's talk page.
Message added 20:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Another IP in that Desert Sands range was just blocked by Favonian... Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zzuuzz/Archive_28&oldid=1139117424"