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.
I'll take a look, but I'll be honest: I find these types of articles so badly referenced that it is usually virtually impossible to distinguish vandalism. I would generally want to see reliable sources conclusively indicating that the new information is misinformation. -- zzuuzz(talk)09:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got 'em.
Looks as if we have a couple of pop culture-obsessed dingbats creating socks. :) User:Awakened Assassin is definitely Bambifan, but the other apears to be a sock of the equally dweeby User:Onelifefreak2007. Anyone whose username reflects the great love of their life as One Life to Live isn't here to promote higher thinking. Thanks for the alert and for the great catches! Knocked down two chronic vandals in one swipe. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a semi-protect of the pages he's targeting? The chucklefuck doesn't appear to have the brains God gave fish (this is at least one sock IP), so this may discourage him. HalfShadow21:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw; the others just seem to be targets of opportunity. Just thought I'd bring it up if the idea hadn't already struck you. On the other hand, you could use this as a honeypot... HalfShadow21:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a honeypot might <censored></censored> him off or give him motivation. Anyways, thanks for removing whatever it was and for blocking him. wiooiw (talk)00:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Zzuuzz's Day!
User:Zzuuzz has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Zzuuzz's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Zzuuzz!
It's a long story. Very long. I mean years long. And Zzuuzz isn't the only target. It's just that Zzuuzz is an awesome sysop, and this particular person happens to hold a grudge against quite a few of those types of people :) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it was something like that. People that get angry that *gasp* they can't spam wiki pages. I was just wondering if it was any personal vendetta. :P Thanks, —Chrishy01:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Shirik. Yep, I regularly deal with a large number of vandals; this is just one of them. It's probably much like you say - he probably doesn't get why his vandalism was removed. -- zzuuzz(talk)09:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
61.18.170.156 is a proxy of 62.193.238.56, which you blocked, thanks. I have been finding these weird edits all over the place, before I thought to note them. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole of 61.18.170/24 is an exit server for an open proxy. I blocked the range for an hour earlier - I wouldn't want to block it any longer without good reason. You'll find a load more in my blocking log. Thanks though. -- zzuuzz(talk)11:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cookie!
Friendly Cookie has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
They're not easy to miss ;) If you feel under any restriction to act on these open proxies feel free to drop them my way. -- zzuuzz(talk)15:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wikinger isn't normally Greece-related, so I can act against him without restrictions. His idea of creating Macedonia-related socks to set me up, if it was him, would have been a new one, but it doesn't really make much of a difference either. Fut.Perf.☼15:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
range blocking 75.233.118.219
Hi, IP address 75.233.118.219 has been hopping between addresses to vandalise several articles and is now on their final warning we would like you to discuss what to do with them on the ANI (Administrators notice board/incidents)--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you made an edit to the List, so I'm assuming you're familiar with some of the vandals listed there. Are you aware of any vandals listed on the list or main page that are no longer active? I'd like to remove or archive their entries if they are no longer active. Thanks. Netalarmtalk21:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky. I'm not familiar with them all, but there are many I know are still active, and others I know we shouldn't remove within two years of their last appearance. Perhaps we could split them into a 'status unknown'-type list. -- zzuuzz(talk)21:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed one's that haven't been active since 2007 and 2008. I think it's pretty safe to do so, but in case they come back, the entry can be pulled back from the page history. The list is already huge, and more entries still need to be created, but a "status-unknown" list could be created I think. Just not sure if it should also be on the main page. Oh, is Bambifan101 still active? Netalarmtalk21:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are (or were) some short-term vandals on the page, or ones long gone who can be removed. There are other long termers who might not have been mentioned recently but may still be around or might pop up again, and then there are the active ones (in the last year or so). Perhaps a 'last confirmed sighting' date as of June 2010, in the summary, might be a better way to do it. -- zzuuzz(talk)21:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed yes, I now remember noticing it before. There's more in the talk page history. Maybe someone will sort it out some time soon. -- zzuuzz(talk)22:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I intend starting an an article with this name. It is an all-Irish language school in Clonmel (redlinked there) with no commonly used English name. You previously deleted an article with this title. Is it possible to see what content it held? It may have been written in Irish and contain some info that may be of use. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It's been deleted twice. The first version simply contained a name. The second, which I deleted, basically said (in English) that it's a mixed Gaelcholáiste and that another school might not like it. It was short and mostly gibberish in any language, with no useful content. -- zzuuzz(talk)08:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching the vandalism remnants on Talk:Israel. With all the damage being done, I'm not surprised some of it slipped through the cracks. FYI, I've requested semi-protection of the page for a few hours to see if that will discourage them. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does this warrant being semiprot'd? My gut instinct would be that 2 or 3 instances a day is borderline deserving of semi-protection, but I can't see anything other than permanent semi-protection doing much long term good due to the subject's popularity/notoriety, and the long-term nature of the vandalism to that page. What are your thoughts? Throwaway85 (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
for you good work has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Hi I have commented on the page but though you should have these for your work. I laughed so loud at your comments I got cookie crumbs over my monitor lol
Thanks! I think whoever wrote the plot deserves an award, of some sort. I guess that film must excite the creative aspects of the mind. -- zzuuzz(talk)17:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I
Hi -- As to the AN/I you just closed, the clear majority/consensus of comments were in favor of a three-month block. I'm not clear if the close was following that. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm sorry I disagree. I've seen a lot of ban discussions and after a week of campaigning at ANI there wasn't enough consensus for a single admin to re-block the user for any additional time let alone for 3 months, after their last block was lifted, after they apologised, after they undertook not to repeat the behaviour, and before they caused any further problems. Though I followed all the comments from start to finish, if you want some perspective I suggest you take out the comments from the three main contributors to the thread and re-read what's left. -- zzuuzz(talk)10:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree with Epeefleche. I count a majority for a lengthy enforced block - one for a minimum one month block with most of the rest of that majority calling for three months. Also one editor (Ginger) calling for no further blockage changed their mind on further review of additional disclosures. In my view Epeefleche's reasoning was clear, and the diffs were were detailed, to the point and convincing of a long-term pattern of abuse. I respectfully call on you to review your closure and reconsider this one. Thanks, Jusdafax11:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found the arguments about the founder claim, that he was more concerned about, to be both quite extraordinary and resolved in full. -- zzuuzz(talk)12:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to badger, and Giftiger aside, I again note Epeefleche's lengthy and disturbing diffs, which you do not refute or comment on. Thanks again, Jusdafax16:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noted narrow interest. That is not to say the discussion cannot be used in the future, but it has little support for a fresh block without new behaviour. -- zzuuzz(talk)17:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's now closed, so this is just by way of clarification of a few things. First, thanks for your time. Yours is an often thankless job. Second, while you noted narrow interest, I agree with Giftiger and with Jusda that there was far greater than narrow interest. A full seven of the nine editors who commented after all the facts were put on the table on June 22 !voted for a longer block. If anything was narrow, it was the interest in sticking with a 3-day block. Third, I did leave out the part of the discussion that preceded all the facts coming out. As I thought I indicated. That is because that discussion was poisoned (as was the revert to a three day block) by Gift mistakenly misrepresenting (in good faith) that Three had not been recently warned. While in truth he had been warned three times that day. And seven times that month. And by Off2 concealing the disruptive editing history he was well aware of, and characterizing Three in just the opposite laudatory fashion. Best -- looking forward to working with you again in the future.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got a side question for ya. I am highly considering stealing borrowing your Archives box and making into my own (credit of course given), but I am having one slight problem. How do you center an image? You can see the almost finished box here. I like the dancing flower for some reason (makes me laugh) and would like to have it centered. Feel free to tinker at will. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. You don't need to credit me too much, though you may want to credit someone else for the idea of the searchbox. -- zzuuzz(talk)09:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am going offline for a few. I would recommend a temporary semi-protection of ANI for sockpuppetry and probably an SPI on those two accounts to see who they really are and flush out the sleepers and possibly get a rangeblock going as well. Take Care and Have a Good Day...NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
talkback
Hello, Zzuuzz. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Filter 17
I think the change I made should work, actually. I remember testing it by starting with the whole code and then whittling it down to just the one line that was triggering that hit, and then removing code even from that one line until the edit was no longer matched. (Because it was easier than searching the paragraphs for the many possible spellings that would match). —Soap—00:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a bit that way, but on balance I'd prefer to keep it open at this time. Pending changes won't work in talk space by the way. -- zzuuzz(talk)19:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For your recent assistance in sucking all of the vandalism to your talk page, I award you this black hole!
First, The Thing That Should Not Be, then Shirik, and now you. The good news is that the admins can put AntiAbuseBot to more testing. I have no idea what's going on! mechamind9023:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you RD2d the vandal's edit. A side effect is that my rollback has also been RD2d. Not a problem really, but is there no way to show that my edit was a rollback of vandalism (even if it doesn't show who the vandal was). Is this just a tech issue? Mjroots (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to take talk page access away after this post. I was tempted to review the unblock (as I know non-admins can), but I just removed it, but it will probably be put back. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was/am fairly close to realising I accidentally click the wrong block length, but usually prefer an independent admin reviews the requests. I was just reading up a little on the sockiness of the situation. -- zzuuzz(talk)19:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi zzuzz! I know you're familiar with IP networks... I was wondering 1. how do you know/can you tell if an IP is a proxy and 2. if it belongs to a tor? I know it has something to do with the WHOIS but i dont know what to look for. I feel if I knew this, especially the proxy IPs, I could just report them. Thanks :) -Tommy![message]10:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Guide to checking open proxies may help, also Tor exit checker and WP:OPD. After a while you just get to know when to check if an IP is an open proxy - usually it's the same banned users who use them, or for example we often see a lot of them spinning political biographies. Whois can sometimes tell you if an IP is used by a dedicated webserver hosting range - often a suggestion that it might be an open web proxy, or sometimes the reverse DNS will give some info (see[5]). But Google is the best indicator of when to check an IP further. Take a look at some of my recent IP blocks,[6] do some research on the IPs, and you should be able to confirm them as I have. -- zzuuzz(talk)11:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. At least they've stopped apparently cutting people's lives short, the main reason for the block. It seems that their edits are based on what pixar wikia is saying, so although it may be wrong and not a reliable source, it doesn't appear to be on the scale of recklessness that caused the block. -- zzuuzz(talk)19:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's probably a circular reference. At least most of the edits were probably right anyway. I'll try and keep an eye what they get up to next. -- zzuuzz(talk)19:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It's not even my own talk page, but I'm a frequent collaborator, so I see the vandalism every day on my watchlist. Do you think you coud semi-protect his talk page, just to frustrate whoever this is that keeps vandalising? Reply here. Radiopathy•talk•23:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently blocked the IP for a week, and if it reoccurs with the same IP it'll be longer. Semi-protection is on the agenda though. -- zzuuzz(talk)07:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the IP, but the reason I even posted in the first place is that I've seen this from other IPs - the same thing, the obscenities, etc. Radiopathy•talk•09:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bree Olson article
Could you clarify your edit on the Bree Olson article? The description mentions a "possible BLP issue or vandalism" but since the editor (Tosh90) has been blocked and his edits are not visible I can't figure it out. Just trying to educate myself. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraEdit (talk • contribs) 22:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the reverts on my page! Those edits by the IP 201.63.225.2 occurred a few minutes after I left a V4im warning on this user's talk page concerning this edit he made which was inappropriate even in the Sandbox. I don't know if the IP is linked to him, but the timing and content seem to indicate it wasn't a coincidence. Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting us know. The chances of coincidence are indeed small, but hopefully there'll be no need to block anyone else at this time. -- zzuuzz(talk)07:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
Hey There, I just wanted to thank you with your help at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. I've been working to block open proxies at the Simple English Wikipedia and then have been posting the ones that aren't already blocked here at the wikiproject. Every time I post them, it seems you are the only one taking care of them, so I just wanted to thank you for your hard work!--Gordonrox24 | Talk15:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that you protected Lee Jun Ki due to sockpuppetry. I suspect that the user is User:InkHeart, who has been banned but still comes back using anons and sockpuppets. Judging by Special:Contributions/Jenaveev18's recent actions, I believe that it is InkHeart. Is there a way that you can check to verify? Thanks. Ωphois19:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is definitely a sock afoot, but I'm not really familiar enough with InkHeart to meaningfully block the account. I can say with some experience that it's likely to be the same user as the edit-warring open proxy IP I blocked. Is proxy editing a pattern? Anyway, I would say WP:SPI w/checkuser would be the way to go to get a block mainly based on behavioural evidence. The technical data may or may not be enough - again, I'm not currently familiar enough. -- zzuuzz(talk)19:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I've generally found that to be ineffective against her. Anyways, I'll just wait and see if she continues her disruptions. Ωphois19:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that EunSoo and InkHeart are supposedly the same person. That should make things a bit easier in the future. Feel free to drop me a line if there's more similar disruption from IPs and socks. -- zzuuzz(talk)20:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi zzuuzz, I was going through your block log and I was thinking that you should inquire to the arbcom about acquiring checkuser privileges... I think it'd be very useful for you, what do you think? Tommy![message]10:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, there's definitely a royal feast for checkusers in that blocking log. It's something I may consider when the niggles have gone. -- zzuuzz(talk)11:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get you clearly ... were you asking for the reason I move-protected it? The article has been facing a lot of undiscussed moves recently. So, I move protected it. Since I am not dealing with the content issues, I have not semi-protected it. If you feel to semi-protect it, go ahead and do it. I think, given the unilateral moves of the article, it needs to stay move-protected for a while. --Ragib (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
move=sysop is fine. I did move=autoconf because most of the moves were done by new throwaway accounts. So, your protection is fine. --Ragib (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there is a misunderstanding as I only changed 2 dividers and some Jap pages don't have Characters in the infobox. 浴衣℃YucataC01:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now you've reverted my post on this page. Yucata, you cannot remove other peoples' talk page posts, short of them being vandalism or personal attacks. Like I said, I can't revert back due to the 3RR, so I'll just leave it reverted for now. GorillaWarfaretalk01:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The levels of disruption and denial are almost unmistakeable, and if it's to be confirmed it will be accompanied by more disruption, sockpuppets, and open proxies. As a point of order, Yucata.C, removing accusations about yourself from this page will get you blocked a whole lot quicker than being a confirmed sock of a banned user with a leg sticking out of one end, toes out the other, and banned user weaved into the sole. -- zzuuzz(talk)08:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. With a quick glance I would say no. They are all registered to "AT&T BRAS3 MRDNCT SBCIS", are dynamic, and looks like they are reassigned in under a day. -- zzuuzz(talk)20:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted and salted this. The two most recent accounts creating it are obvious socks, but I don't know whether to file an SPI or? I'm off to bed in any case. Dougweller (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I don't know exactly why you fully protected this page, but the fact of the matter is that it's not a edit war, it's a case of plain vandalism. The annon user insist that RA2 and Sole Survivor is part of the C&C main universe, while Tiberium Wars and Tiberian Twilight is not, for no other reason then his/her own personal opinion. Anyone familiar with the subject knows that this is completely inaccurate, and also goes against long-standing consensus established through heavy debate in the past. --MrStalker(talk)23:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. That is not the definition of vandalism, and you had both already breached 3RR. Frankly it was that or a warning about blocks for you both. You will obviously be able to add references and links to the talk page to support your assertion. -- zzuuzz(talk)07:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Persistently ignoring talk page messages and repeatedly reverting changes without consideration of consensus is disruptive and clearly vandalism in my book. Let me put it this way: Unintentionally introducing factual errors is not vandalism, but when the user has been explained why it's an error and still insist on making the change without any proof to his/her own claim, it's deliberate and as such constitutes vandalism. At least consider what I've written on the talk page and revert the template back to its earlier state. Also please consider that this a template visible on many articles and having factual errors in it is not desirable. --MrStalker(talk)09:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW Zzuuzz, my spot check on a couple of the articles linked from the template seems to confirm the spin off vs in-universe-edness of the categorization in the template. I didn't dig deeply enough to discern if there are viable sources for the status quo, but at least the status quo meshes with the template...whereas the IP version is incorrect and unsourced. Syrthiss (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI #2: Given that it has become apparent that there will be little constructive benefit to unblocking the user, with him/her resorting to personal attacks, I have withdrawn my olive branch and declined the unblock request myself. CT Cooper ·talk15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I'm not particularly impressed with vandalism accusations and the one-sided AIV block six hours after full protection, but at least all familiarity with policy hasn't gone out the window. -- zzuuzz(talk)16:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the comments above, can we at the very least say there is some consensus to revert to the old version? These factual inaccuracies in the template is like a nail in my eye. --MrStalker(talk)17:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed Fairly static - I've extended the block a bit. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a duck to me -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
