User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 19

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.

Protections

Lets try to minimize preemptive (and 'postemptive') protection where we can. I'm presuming you weren't just reacting to 'normal' vandalism with the protections, but if so, then you can disregard. Protection can be as much of a goal as vandalism, so it would likely get boring faster without the ability to 'keep score' so to speak of the number of pages 'locked'. Prodego ^talk 02:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi zzuuzz, I was the subject of a report made to the Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard yesterday by Amsaim (talk · contribs). It was a slightly odd and inappropriately made report, given the circumstances of the events (i.e. there was no actual vandalism involved, nor were any valid warnings given prior to his report), but note he did not receive a subst:uw-aiv message. What was the result of his report?

Cheers Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Yes it was a curious report, and I removed it after not seeing any problem at all.[1] To me it was so obviously wrong that I simply dismissed as a case of mistaken identity or misread history or something, and didn't see any purpose in following it up other than keeping an eye on the article/discussions for a short while. It was probably your second removal of the CSD template that triggered the report[2]. I don't know if that's generally a good idea. But it was at AfD by the time I saw the report. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right. I'll play it differently in future if faced with a similar situation. Thanks! Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hey - can I ask what the nature of the edits were to my page, so that they had to be suppressed? Thanks... Tan | 39 02:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

...?

Why revert the sandbox? I do not contest the edit, I am just confused... -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 22:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a sandbox, so the question is obviously, why not? No, seriously, having to load 1Mb of text (twice) because you were asked to experiment, is not so fun. The first point stands however, and if you want to see your results, just look in the history. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I know what it looked like. ;)

• (diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia:Sandbox‎; 16:43 . . (+62,518) . . RadicalOne (talk | contribs) (I couldn't resist ;))
• (diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia:Sandbox‎; 16:46 . . (+759,560) . . RadicalOne (talk | contribs) (I couldn't resist ;) and I did learn something.)

-RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 22:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Great! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

79.75.244.174

Any chance of blocking him from using his talk aswell? raseaC^{talk to me} 01:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be under control. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:The-Digital-Avatar

You blocked the above user as a sockpuppet. However, you didn't specify who. I'm an admin at Simple English Wikipedia and he showed up. I had a CU done on him and nothing came back. I'd appreciate if you could specify so I could block if appropriate. Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't really say for sure. Certainly User:HardFloppyClock, possibly User:Pickbothmanlol, probably using open proxies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbz1. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Sock Supicion

Hi zzuuzz,

In looking at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Herbert_Hudson_Taylor_IV, I noticed you had blocked HardFloppyClock as a sockpuppet. I'd like to ask your opinion on the aforementioned AfD, which HardFloppyClock blanked.

The article in question was written by Liawilde415 (contribs), a new editor. Interestingly, three additional new editors have appeared, since the AfD was filed, to vote for retention...

• Time2evolve (contribs)
• Nigelfothergill (contribs)
• Rachelb2 (contribs)

I'm suspicions of possible sock puppetry, but have no evidence to submit in a report other than the interesting timing of their appearance. I'm also suspicions of off-wiki canvasing, giving the timing of the account creations, but there's even less evidence of that.

Is it worth filing a report anyway?

Thanks... -FeralDruid (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is keeping track, here's another one: Chasec87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

OTOH, I believe (1) the brand-new SPA editors are almost definitely buddies, and while there's no smoking gun showing they're being asked to !vote, the behavior all points that way, and (2) any admin paying attention will notice all the !votes in the AFD are keeps from new editors & deletes from experienced editors, and take that into account when closing. Whether they're sockpuppets (possible) or meatpuppets (where I'd place my $$), it won't matter in the long run.

Sorry to stick my nose in like this, but as the one who nom'd Herbert Hudson Taylor IV for AFD, I've been keeping a close eye on this crew. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The AfD certainly caught my eye when I blocked HardFloppyClock, who I'll say incidentally is probably completely unrelated. I agree pretty much with what DoriSmith said. The first sentence of this edit and this edit is one I've seen many a time before, but it's not so bad in the big scheme of things. This seems to be an article that will live or die on policy-related arguments, in particular WP:V and WP:RS, and the puppets aren't too disruptive or numerous (yet), so I'd be inclined to just tag 'em as SPAs, keep their pages red, and let the arguments persuade everyone about the article's merits or lack thereof. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocking proxies

Hello, can you add {{blocked proxy}} to talk pages of blocked proxy IPs? It adds these addresses to Category:Open proxies blocked on Wikipedia and helps a lot to fight vandalism on other wikis, because such addresses can be later found. Thanks --Derbeth ^talk 00:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. That category is useless, and responsible for many bad blocks across the Internet. Half of them aren't even blocked on this wiki. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You might might the list of range blocks more useful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there really no way open proxy blocks are shared across different wikis? --Derbeth ^talk 21:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The interwiki WP:OP (meta:WM:OP) sort of died, but it's still just about active with only myself and one or perhaps two others on this wiki. That can be a good source of info. My block log may also be relevant, and the most prolific open proxy blocker on this wiki is User:ProcseeBot. You'll notice it blocks open proxies for 2 months - it used to be a bit longer but I presume was getting too much collateral. A large proportion of open proxies that I block are only open for a few months, so it's frankly a waste of time tagging them. I've been meaning for ages to try and clean out CAT:OP as much as possible. There's a thread at WP:AN right now in which I point to the 7,000 blocked dynamic IPs in CAT:OP which are almost certainly no longer open proxies. You might want to look at nl:User:RonaldB (see WP:OPD) as his bot runs on several wikis blocking and unblocking as appropriate. There's also meta:Special:Log/gblblock where they deal with some of them. But as for coordination that's pretty much all there is. Some wikis, like zh: are quite welcoming about them. Most just deal with them as they turn up. Many open proxies don't cause as much damage as other vandals, and the damage is usually localised. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

79.75.136.149

Who is this guy?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A checkuser might be able to name him, I know him as this guy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just block 79.75.128.0/17 and we can be done with him for some time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It would probably take a large proportion of the UK with it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

RISQ

Hi- FYI, they're at it again: User_talk:206.167.67.253#January 2010. Eric ^talk 15:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a shared school IP, and for now as it's relatively new I think I'll keep an eye on it just in case anything useful pops out of it. It'll probably end up blocked soon enough, but you never know. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. It's quite bad to be affected by a useless two years old block. 80.58.205.96 (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Any time! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Child?

I have taken the liberty of reverting more edits by the child (presumably: or possibly exceptionally childish adult?) who keeps posting nonsense from IP addresses. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk page

I semi-protected your talk page. Just curious but is that particular vandalism new? The reason I ask is that for a time I also had several IP's leaving the same message on my talk page but that was a couple of years or so ago. something lame from CBW 01:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As always, thanks everyone. Yes this one is old, and until a couple of edits recently, recessive. See User:Random-5000. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep that looks like the same guy. One of the deleted contributions matches something I deleted about that time. They were very persistent for a while. I haven't seen them for a long time. something lame from CBW 06:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Shartikon Guy

Dangit, I was just about to block him and you beat me to it :) At least he's blocked now, though; although I do not envy the people who have to clean up the afd mess he's made. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy close :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine...

That's quite a hefty fine he laid on you there. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Micro-Cruzer

I see you blocked Micro-Cruzer at 20:50 on 30 January 2010 as a sockpuppet. Please could you add a template to the users talk page noting that and of which account Micro-Cruzer was a sockpuppet of. -- PBS (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear, particularly as there's a lot of misinformation and joe jobbing going on. It could be User:Pickbothmanlol[3]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Boston Strangler

Hi Zzuuzz. I gather from this edit summary that the latest instantiation of the German Boston-hater has been blocked. What puzzles me is that when I check his block log, which I did prior to reporting him, it's empty. Favonian (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. See[4] - the exact same problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ach so! Good to know the situation is under control. You certainly get your German vocabulary expanded ;) Favonian (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Gathering 172 evidence for abuse report

What would be the best way to go about doing this? I'm assuming that AIV can't be of much help... Should we simply wade through the contribution histories of all of the known IPs? As someone who's had a lot of experience with 172, I'm hoping you might be able to offer some insight. Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll mention first that I have little faith in abuse reports and it may appear to be a waste of time. Then I would seek advice from WP:ABUSE. I understand User:PCHS-NJROTC is probably rightly under a ban from filing complaints, but s/he could have something to contribute in terms of presentation. I expect the ISP would want to see a list of every IP, the (start and end) times it was being used by the vandal, and then a summary of the vandalism itself. It seems to me the ranges are used in Canada, or by people interested in Canada, and there are one or two good faith 172 contributors in the histories of the articles, but just about all the other 172 edits are vandalism. I would gather a comprehensive list of (Canadian political) articles affected and get a script to extract all the edits made by the 172s. It's probably worth adding that list of articles to the ANI subpage to help with this and so people can watchlist them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Androstachys block

Thank you for sorting out the block - it is much appreciated! Androstachys (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/75.99.28.106

Can you please revoke 75.99.28.106's talk page editing privileges? I see you blocked s/he for being an open proxy in November, but s/he keeps removing the block template from the talk page and replacing it with a picture of a monkey. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Zzuuzz. You have new messages at Taelus's talk page.
Message added 18:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Taelus (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I'll have you know that my edits are perfect!--78.144.107.181 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Darth Kracht

Dammit, you got to them a minute before I did! One less scalp for me. Fences&Windows 14:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Was this guy annoying or what? I actually find it flattering that he took the time to insult me in Portuguese... I think I'm keeping that one on my talk page :) XXX antiuser ^eh? 14:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Pournick

this user was prohibited from editing in en-wikiedia by User:Khoikhoi for one month and he was noticed that he can't edit with any shape or form.(seehere) but he is still editing with this (188.158.197.116)IP (see here). he even with this IP in my talk page change my answers.(seehere.) He even in my talk page insulting me of being chauvinist .like this in persian language:

ویکی را مسخره احساسات شوونیستی ات کرده ای

translate:

<<you Quizing wiki by your chauvinistic ideas.>>

see here too. in yhis page as you see he said <<the user User:Bahramm 2 is kurd! (and probably chauvinist!)>>

he morever insulting me by some bad words like this in persian language:

قدرت خاصی نمیخواد! یه کم ....های مدیران را مالاندن میخواد که کردی

translate:

<<it doesn't need special power for blocking me. it just need kissing the ass of administrators as you did.>>

he makes me really nervous I think you should extending his block. tahanks for your help.Bahramm 2 (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Francesca Rogers page-move vandalism

I only blocked for 31 hours at first sight, because there seemed to be some good-faith, or at least not obviously vandalism, edits before; possibly compromised account? On the whole, think I should make the block indef, unless you advise otherwise? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• No need to answer, I see you have. JohnCD (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Now indef'd and locked. It looks like User:JarlaxleArtemis or similar. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In case it was you who worked on that talk page, please see: User_talk:Baseball_Bugs#Wikia_talk_page. --Xeeron (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

[5] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thx. --Xeeron (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Question - Sanctuary Falls Page

Hello Zzuuzz,

I believe you had deleted my page earlier, titled Sanctuary Falls, and thus this note. I'd like to know why this page seems to be constantly deleted and does not show up in random searches.

As owners of the project, we have a right to display this information, and are not using Wikipedia as a tool for advertising and promotion, but for general information and interest, similar to how other pages such as ‘Jumeirah Golf Estates’, & ‘Nakheel’ exist. As a community this is an internationally recognized development across the entire Middle east, and the page will have will have rather generic information about the same.

Some of the text I am looking at placing includes:

---

Sanctuary Falls

Sanctuary Falls is a multi award winning, golf development located in Jumeirah Golf Estates, Dubai, UAE. A collection of 99 resort villas, Sanctuary Falls is a landmark community set amidst lush golf vistas and inspiring lakes. Located on the Earth Course of Jumeirah Golf Estates, the golfing development has received International acclaim after it won the 2008 Best International Golf Development Award, from the CNBC Property Awards in Orlando USA in 2008; and is the only golf development from the Middle East to have won such an award.

The development has been conceived and created by world renowned hotel and resort architects, interior and landscape designers who have the likes of the One&Only Royal Mirage, Dubai, UAE, The Ritz Carlton Hotel & Resort and the Madinat Jumeirah amongst a few, to their credit.

The development is currently under construction, with handovers commencing 2010.

Project Partners

Some of the project partners involved in the project include:

1. Construction - Arabtec Construction LLC.. 2. Architectural design - DSA Architects International 3. Interior Design - Hirsch Bedner Associates (HBA) 4. Landscape design - 40 North 5. Kitchen Design & Appliances - Scavolini & Miele 6. Audio & Visual- Bang & Olufsen 7. Home Automation - Archimedia 8. Sanitary Ware - Villeroy & Boch 9. Concierge Service - Quintessentially

Awards won by Sanctuary Falls

The development has been the recipient of numerous awards for superior design and development. Some of them include:

- Best International Golf Development (2008) - Best Architecture ‐ Single (2008) - Best Interior Design (2008) - Best Property (2008) - Best Property Marketing (2008) - Best Development (2008) - Best Golf Development (2008) - Best Golf Development (2007)

---

This is the text i'd like to have placed up. Do advise if it needs to be further revised or what i need to do to have something up like this.

Thanks a ton!

OM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.4.190 (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. First please note there is no right to display information on Wikipedia. Second, there are some policies you should read. These include Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:ORG. Third, advertising, I note you have removed phrases like 'nestled', 'inspired experience' and 'meticulously designed' which formed the basis for me deleting it as advertising; you also need to lose words like 'lush' and 'world renowned'. This version is much better, but it still doesn't quite come across as something an independent editor would write. Fourth and most importantly, if as you suggest, this is a unique development which has won awards and achieved note, and you think it passes the general notability guideline (WP:N), then it needs independent reliable references to support the assertions. This specifically excludes press releases. To be honest stuff like this gets deleted all the time and as the development is still under construction I don't hold out much hope for an article, but I'm always ready to be proved wrong. Independent reliable sources is the key to any article's survival - the more the better. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn

...was that fun, or what? NawlinWiki (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

...and Empty. All good target practice :} 4chan? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Has to be. Still a few trickling in. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Statesboro High School

ok sorry i'll stop messing around —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jburns1124 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

k, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ian Halperin

Thanks for the semi-protect. MuffledThud (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And for blocking all the socks. MuffledThud (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem! It helps to use edit summaries in all caps when making requests like this at RFPP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi-prot. There has been vandalism post-semi-prot, perhaps might need some further monitoring. Any assistance would be appreciated. I am not sure why this is happening at this particular point in time. Thanks again, Cirt (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. See also[6] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Tfoxworth reincarnations

Permanently blocked User:Tfoxworth has commenced his weekly noctournal vandalism, at the moment using sockpuppet User:166.166.208.119, as previously reported here and demonstrated by his incarnations here and here. Please help. FactStraight (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a user I'm familiar with, and it looks like a huge dynamic range. Can you point to some vandalism, and your suggested solution? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I asked you for assistance because you seemed to be online when this vandal usually is at work: late at night (California time) on weekends, although admin MuZemike does a stalwart job when online. Tfoxworth's vandalism consists, despite being permanently blocked, of changing anon accounts rapidly to impose his views on royalty pages, then indiscrimantly mass reverting the edits of those who identify & revert his vandalism. I suggested a specific fix at the bottom of a discussion here. Please help. FactStraight (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Need help against vandal.

Sorry if I'm disturbing you, but the Indonesian misinformation vandal is wreaking havoc again right now, using the IP address 202.70.54.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Can you please block this address ASAP before his vandalism continues? WP:AIV is currently backlogged, BTW. Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And already blocked by Willking1979. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was about to say "never mind" when you typed in your reply. But anyway, still thank you for your quick response and I hope you take note of his MO, if you still remember it. This guy's becoming increasingly sneaky. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you make me an article?

Seeing as you deleted the article for Towey Software almost a year ago for not qualifying. Is it possible for you to create an article for Towey Software. If the application for iPhone called Doodle Jump gets one why dont we, a small business?

reply to: rhys@toweysoftware.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.86.88 (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Towey Software? I'm not sure if I did. Anyway, see WP:WAX and WP:CORP. As always an article will require several independent reliable references asserting note according to the guideline. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please help with an edit filter problem

I can't figure out what caused this editor to set off the filter. None of the watch words seem to appear in either the lines he added or the whole article before or after. Am I reading the code wrong? Either way, this filter has been set off twice in the past few days, and is very difficult to work with because even false positives are still often controversial edits that I'd be hesitant to add myself. —Soap— 01:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I figured out the problem. Send me an email if you want a copy of my explanation. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, I should have looked around some more... Shirik explained the problem exactly on at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter#Filter 17. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly one of the more obscure filters. With categories like that I'd also look carefully at any mentions of France. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sussex Coast College Hastings

Thanks for doing the move, and so quickly. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't want to deprive you of the redirect cleanup,[7] so I left them alone :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Protection request

Hi, would you protect Peaches Geldof and Peter Mandelson for me for perhaps a month or two months, Mandelson is coming up to the election and has the new download laws creating vandalism also, I did ask one of the previous protectors to extend but he refused and said he wanted to see more vandalism first and the vandalism continued and NW has protected as a result of it but only for a couple of days, mandelson gest no edits beneficial from IP accounts, almost all are repeated vandal edits, Peaches get a fair bit of derogatory editing and she has been complaining about it on twitter. Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Peaches

I will watch it as much as I can, thanks. Any more and I will request full protection for a few days. Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Principal says school is cured of vandalism

Hi Zzuuzz, would you please take off the editing ban on our school? As the principal, I have monitored internet use much more and am confident that there will be no more vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.93.72 (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Would you provide the IP address(es) affected by the block, so I can look into taking the appropriate action. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

Could you check if this IP is an open proxy 66.114.134.154 (talk · contribs)? You blocked some open proxies in the 23prootie SPI, so I thought I'd talk to you. Same with this 221.224.206.86 (talk · contribs) who also seems to correlate to 66.114.134.154. Thanks. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes for the first one. The other almost certainly was an open proxy, but I'm not sure if it's still one. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This IP 69.207.29.160 (talk · contribs)? Elockid ^(Talk) 19:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Port 8085, fairly dynamic, two weeks should cover it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. This is going to be a persistent problem. Do you mind if come to you for more open proxy checks mainly regarding 23prootie? Elockid ^(Talk) 19:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm a bit sporadic at the moment, as you'll see from my contribs. I'd recommend a block-for-a-reasonably-short-time-first-ask-questions-later-type approach. You can do a quick duck test by searching google for the IP address.[8][9][10] Anything less than 100 results shouldn't be blocked for more than a couple of weeks, but you'll get a reasonably good idea if it's a proxy or not. Anyway list them here and I'll review them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Some new ones:

• 99.246.133.199 (talk · contribs)
  • Yes
• 216.15.106.60 (talk · contribs)
  • Yes, fairly dynamic, seems closed at the moment.
• 99.226.253.167 (talk · contribs)
  • Yes.
• 120.29.240.2 (talk · contribs) (blocked by ProcseeBot previously)
  • Yes, but currently inconclusive.
• 200.66.103.212 (talk · contribs) (previously blocked by you)
  • Yes, but currently inconclusive.
• 95.65.17.128 (talk · contribs)
  • Yes, fairly dynamic, seems closed at the moment.
• 119.115.136.62 (talk · contribs)
  • Yes.
• 221.12.47.2 (talk · contribs) (blocked by ProcseeBot and Spellcast as open proxies previously)
  • Yes.
• 203.199.50.19 (talk · contribs) (blocked by ProcseeBot previously)
  • Yes.
• 24.202.2.68 (talk · contribs) (Haven't blocked yet but there are similarities)
  • No.

Elockid ^(Talk) 23:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've reblocked where I think that's appropriate. I'll try the others later. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for checking. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you also check this one?

• 114.80.67.252 (talk · contribs)
  • Yes
• 91.121.105.171 (talk · contribs)
  • Inconclusive
• 80.193.231.93 (talk · contribs)
  • Yes
• 211.138.124.201 (talk · contribs)
  • Inconclusive

Elockid ^(Talk) 00:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reblocked two; the others were open proxies but might not still be. I'll see what they look like when the current blocks expire. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I did a search and these were listed under anonymous proxies on some sites but not entirely sure:

• 98.223.231.38 (talk · contribs)
• 71.196.20.144 (talk · contribs)

Elockid ^(Talk) 20:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Bongomatic/The Improvisatore

Hi Zzuuzz. I am currently working on an article about Danish literature. While developing the section on Hans Christian Andersen, I tried to find references to his highly successful novel The Improvisatore. As there surprisingly seemed to be nothing in the English WP, I Googled for other info and was confronted with User:Bongomatic/The Improvisatore. I have searched the contributions of Bongomatic around this period and it does indeed seem as if he was banned by you from editing. However his contribution on The Improvisatore seems perfectly accurate to me and I cannot imagine why it is no longer accessible. Perhaps it appears as a subject of dispute simply because it was in Bongomatics sandbox at the time he was banned. Can you help me to revive the article or at least advise me on how to go about drafting a new one without running into difficulties. -- Ipigott (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. User:Bongomatic doesn't appear to have been blocked by me or anyone else[11], and appears to be in good standing. I note the original article at The Improvisatore was created by User:Kathyrncelestewright. There would be attribution problems in restoring the sandboxed article, and I believe the sandboxed article should be deleted due to these attribution issues. Perhaps the article could be rewritten by yourself in your own sandbox, or even in the article namespace. As long as you are not the banned user, that the copyright attribution issue is resolved, and that there are some reliable sources, I don't see there'll be a problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you rapid response. This seems to be an increasingly difficult matter to sort out because I now find that all of the following articles on Hans Christian Andersen have met the same fate:

• User:Bongomatic/The Daisy (fairy tale)
• User:Bongomatic/The Dying Child
• User:Bongomatic/Little Claus and Big Claus
• User:Bongomatic/Little Ida's Flowers
• User:Bongomatic/O. T.
• User:Bongomatic/Only a Fiddler
• User:Bongomatic/Fairy Tales Told for Children. New Collection
• User:Bongomatic/Heartache (short story)
• User:Bongomatic/The Traveling Companion
• User:Bongomatic/The Rose Elf
• User:Bongomatic/The Storks
• User:Bongomatic/The Two Baronesses
• User:Bongomatic/The Buckwheat
• User:Bongomatic/The Naughty Boy

The history of each of these files contains only one line: 05:24, 17 November 2009 Skier Dude (talk | contribs) (3,128 bytes) (userfy Article Title for review)

I have no idea what "userfy" means, nor can I see why Skier Dude was involved.

Do you think it would help if I contacted Bongomatic or Skier Dude directly? I see here that Kathyrncelestewright has been blocked until May 2011. Whatever happened in November 2009 to render these files inactive must have been extremely serious. Given the amount of scholarship, time and effort spent on them already, it seems a great pity that the work cannot be used.

I have looked at the discussion on the author's imminent banning here. She initially seemed to have absolutely no idea that anything was wrong and only becomes concerned when others bring her attention to it. There certainly seems to have been some foul play by others but not by Kathyrncelestewright. Is there no way to restart an examination of the case with a view to cancelling the ban?

All the information the articles contain seems to be reliable and well researched. It does seem to me to be a strange state of affairs that the articles now have to be artificially rewritten for copyright reasons. Are you certain there is no easier solution? -- Ipigott (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userfication :) though it's properly done by moving pages, rather than copy-paste. I have already dropped Bongomatic a note here. See also User_talk:Skier_Dude/archive/archive_Dec_09#Userfication_request and User_talk:MuZemike/Archive_3#ItsLassieTime_article_creations. I think Skier Dude is currently inactive, and that the articles were more deleted because it was a banned user, and banned users are typically treated as non grata. I wasn't involved when this was going on, haven't read too much about it, and you may get better answers from those involved, but my view above stands. You may be able to persuade someone involved to undo their deletion; from a policy point of view there is nothing that requires us to delete a banned user's contributions, but it doesn't make the deletion invalid. I'd be interested to hear what Bongomatic has to say. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I see there is a procedure for this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion. Perhaps I ought to give it another 24 hours to see if Bongomatic replies. He does not seem to have been very active recently. I see that some of the articles have apparently already been de-userfied. -- Ipigott (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There has been a reply from Bongomatic on his own talk page here. Am I therefore able to draw on the articles already written? If so, how do I refer to the sources? You have informed me that the articles were originally written by User:Kathyrncelestewright but I can find no reference to that anywhere. Any suggestions? -- Ipigott (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I can tell who wrote them because I can see the deleted contributions where the articles used to be. Bongomatic's comments wasn't the enlightening response I was looking for. It's worth having a read of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive579#ItsLassieTime_banned_or_not.3F if you haven't already. There have been some questions raised about whether the offline sources can be relied on in the case of this user. As I mentioned before, content made by a banned user doesn't need to be deleted and can be used, but it needs someone to take responsibility for it, and add to it. I wouldn't be content doing that either personally or on your behalf given the articles' current reliance on (basically unverifiable) offline sources. Then there is the copyright issue, which means if parts of the article are to be used then we need to either rewrite them (without the copyright problems) or partially rewrite them and restore the whole history. Given these issues I propose the best course of action is this: You or I have a word with User:Wknight94 who did most of the deletions, and explain that you would like to take responsibility for the articles, to verify them, and to improve them. These then get restored with the full history to your userspace, where you set about verifying and improving and most likely replacing the references. Then they get moved back to the article namespace with both you and the banned user in the article's history. It's really that or you rewrite them without violating the banned user's copyright. I would suggest this is done with a small number of the articles to begin with. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This all seems to be an increasingly complex story. Now that I have had a chance to read all the background, I think the best option is for me to rewrite a few of the articles more or less from scratch with new references, if possible on-line. It looks to me as if the articles should never have been written in the first place as the author was a sock puppet of a banned user. For the time being, I am really only concerned with three or four or the Andersen articles anyway. I may be able to draw on a few of the details of the userfied versions but it would probably be healthier to make a fresh start as far as possible. Thanks for all your help with this. After more than three years on the job, I am beginning to learn a bit more about the mechanics of Wikipedia! -- Ipigott (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

rollback

I see that you are on the list of admins willing to consider granting rollback permissions. So I was hoping you would consider granting me said permission. looking forward to your response. Thanks
Krj373 (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Krj373 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Sociology Newsletter: II (April 2010)

Sociology Project • News • April 2010
The Sociology WikiProject is conducting a roll call (or min-census, if you prefer). More then five years down the road, we have over 50 members, but we don't know how many of them are still active in the sociology area. If you are or want to become once again an active contributor to the sociology content on Wikipedia, please move your name from the inactive to the active list on our roll call. In other news, we have reactivated the newsletter :) At least, for this announcement. We also have a new, automated to do listing, an active tag and assess project (which has identified about 1,800 sociology articles on Wikipedia, and assessed about 1,3000 of them), and three new userboxes for your self-identification pleasure :) On a final note, I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions.
You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a participant at WikiProject Sociology. • signed Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback permission

I would like to get this if I can. I often see vandalism on pages I started or watch. It is easy enough to revert, but I just noticed an editor reverting vandalism using Wikipedia:Huggle, thought I might try it and found I couldn't. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will use it sparingly, only for blatant vandalism or nonsense. Usually undo with an explanation seems better, particularly when the edit seems sincere like this, which is the type I see most often. But it seems useful for ones like this. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Chakdeeyara

Good block. They can't say they weren't warned, can they? Mjroots (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed not. Adequately warned. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So..

I'm kind of confused. Autoblock blocks the last IP used by an indefblock (which can easily be changed), but all IPs are stored by Wikipedia by all users and the only users who can see them are checkusers? Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 15:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Autoblocks are hidden in the blocks table (see Special:BlockList), and automatically removed after 24 hours since the account was last used. Recent changes stores all IP addresses used in the three months. That's what checkusers look at. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that how Wikipedia checks for abuse of multiple accounts? Sorry for the delay, was caught up at work. Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 17:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That, and the duck test of course. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks zzuuzz Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 17:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

wp:DUCK

Hi zzuuzz. I think there's something a bit fishy about this page: here as there are many new edits in the past month all doing similar edits. Thought you might wanna check it out Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 15:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, sure looks fishy, but the sock- or meatpuppetry doesn't look to be the main problem. It looks like a classic POV campaign on a controversial subject with some undue weight thrown in. Probably worth raising at WP:BLPN if it doesn't sort itself out. Having the majority of a BLP full of controversy is not really on. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrought iron table

someone editing from 117.28.97.15 and 218.85.219.60 keeps inserting a link to a website on how to build a wrought iron table to the articles Chair, Table and Furniture. even if it was not in violation of wp:not link, this is so esoteric as to be of interest to almost no one reading those articles. please take a look and deal with it as you deem appropriate. thanks Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for this! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Any time! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User:204.14.41.206

Thanks for blocking that user. I wasn't sure what was going on with those edits. Was it some kind of bot? ... discospinster _talk 17:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, weird. I note an IP making earlier edits, and I've since semi'd the article from another (open proxy). Worth keeping an eye on. It's typical of vandalbot editing, but difficult to say for sure what's going on. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser

Thanks for seeing that attacker off again mate, but I'm afraid that guy might just create another account, do you know if there's a way of seeing him off once and for all? And would checkuser (to which I have a complete lack of knowlage about) work aganist him? Thanks. Btzkillerv (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think not, at this stage. If there is a sustained series of accounts a checkuser may be worth a try. With the semi-protection as it is I think this will be fairly unlikely. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Vindaloo Bfast

Doesnt look like the "Runtshit" I've been told about, but then there are other sockmasters out there ... do you think he's getting into normal PoV-type editing now, rather than simply insulting RolandR, or is this somebody else who also uses socks and edits those articles? I'm interested because I have many Runtshit target articles on my watchlist and revert his edits whenever I see them. But I've never seen him do "normal" edits, even ones which are slanted towards a particular point of view ... I've always seen just vandalism. —Soap— 23:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Runtshit does do normal edits (there are some examples somewhere), but this doesn't look very typical. I've blocked it as a generic disruptive wikistalking, and obvious, sockpuppet. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the follow-up reply you posted on my talkpage. I will keep monitoring those articles. —Soap— 12:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User pagemoving articles way too brashly

I don't know if combating pagemove vandalism is your cup of tea, but Montelaba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) uses the pagemove function way too often and without any source to back his actions, the latest two were on Survivor Philippines: Celebrity Edition and Laguindingan International Airport. Most of this pagemoves had to be reverted by other users. What can you do about him? Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Not the most prolific I've seen :) There are definitely some issues, but also a good proportion of good (or at least non-reverted) moves. I note the airport appears to sometimes uses 'Standard' in its name.[12] I see another message was left today, which would be the first step. I guess we'll await their response. I get the impression that English comprehension might be a bit limited. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I might elevate the issue about him to WP:AN/I later. BTW, do you know what good speedy deletion template would be used on Kuki (TV series) and Kukji (TV series)? I've turned them to redirects since these two were the product of this user's pagemove from Kokey @ Ako and both are non-sensical, I believe. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, you may have a point on the airport, but that's just one source and a Google search on "Laguindingan International Standard Airport" doesn't turn up anything with this exact name, so he may have jumped into conclusions too quickly when he made the redirect on the airport. This is why I bring this up to you and several other admins. As I may have already mentioned, I might elevate the issue to WP:AN/I later if his brash pagemove behavior continues. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you've found the R3 'implausible misnomer'. I did come across another source, as well as not-so reliable sources, and it's strange an official press release might mention it. You are of course welcome to raise this at ANI. My view is that, assuming the copyright issue is resolved, it would be a bit premature. Others will undoubtedly disagree, and he may even get a ban without further ado. There may be little point in mentioning it at ANI if this is not a desired outcome. Please represent my observations about the airport name if I'm not around. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)