zzuuzz/Archive 15

I thought I knew a bit about dynamic IP addresses and shared ones, but I'm confused about the idea that the 2nd user wouldn't have seen the warnings, as they are all on the same talk page. You may well be right about them being different users of course, but I thought there was a connection with the Lahore edits in April and the List of caliphs (where text was deleted, not clearly a test edit) and Five Pillars of Islam but clearly I could be and quite likely was wrong. What I have forgotten about is the orange bar. Here [9] I just found this: "this matter of 'was the block-triggering edit made after the editor saw the warning' is a point that gets missed sometimes (I think you or Geogre made the same argument that Geogre was busy writing a talk page message instead of resetting a certain block). The sequence should be: warning, sees warning, edit, block. Sometimes it is: warning, edit (half a minute later), block, "hey, I didn't see the warning!". It can also be (when the admin gets very confused, or spends a long time writing the warning): edit, warning, block (cue red faces all round). Or even: warning, edit (before seeing warning), responds to warning, block, "I was about to revert and apologise!". Anyway, just some things to think about, I suppose, and I still think the point should be made very forcefully that people should post warnings to user talk pages (for the orange bar) and ensure that enough time has passed for the orange bar to alert the editor. Sometimes, when writing long posts (like this one!), the orange bar doesn't alert an editor until many minutes after the warning was issued. Sometimes even longer if an edit window gets left open." That's very helpful. The orange bar should possibly be mentioned on the AIV page. Is there guidance for giving warnings that I may have missed? I think I've read what there is, but don't recall the orange bar being mentioned, and that seems important. Doug Weller (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The similarity of edits can be explained by either a dynamic or shared IP, and the type of vandalism/testing was quite different. The quote you give is sound indeed. The AIV header currently says, "The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop", which is implicitly related to the message bar. Brevity is highly prized in the AIV header because people won't read it if it's too long, and the current wording has been gradually refined over time. However feel free to improve it if you can. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

LEAVE MY EDITS ALONE! I WONT RUIN YOURS IF YOU DON'T RUIN MINE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmb93 (talk • contribs)

You posted a message to east718's talk page. He is currently away, so I have posted a response. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for telling me the right thing to do in such a supportive way. Please support my article name change if there is debate about the change, because this article really is incorrect and looks stupid, considering Wikipedia is supposed to be based on citations and all, but the name of the article is incorrect? It just doesn't make sense. Thanks again. Bassoonist123 (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So, if the article is moved to Parramatta, what will happen to the Sydney article? Will it be free to actually have the real TKS Sydney? Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassoonist123 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If the article is moved then the editing history will move with it and the Sydney title will become a redirect (like [1] is currently) which can be written over. In the meantime I would suggest starting the new article at a temporary title (for example User:Bassoonist123/The King's School, Sydney) so it can be moved later. It will also help with the move discussion to see it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to compliment your handling of the dispute/revert war that occurred on Rory Blackwell. Bwrs (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

My monobook hasn't worked for ages, I don't think it's due to that problem. It's still not working now, and I've tried the things listed at WP:BYC. Dunno whether Monobooks just don't like Firefox 3.0 or what... D.M.N. (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ssssssoooooooooooooooooo much!!!! Just deleted the things from my cache, including cookies - ping it worked!! The new tools look - nice. =D D.M.N. (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Good day Zzuuzz, lately I've been finding exit servers (if I'm right) take a look at this ip for example. Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  15:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. There is no doubt that exit servers are a pain. Not only are they difficult to find but they usually change exit IP. I find this one currently exits at 217.12.16.53 -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Can this here be a little help for you? Also can an exit server change you to multiple ip's? --Kanonkas :  Talk  16:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The Honeypot Project can be quite useful. The issue about exit servers is that they are often (ISP closed) proxies which can rotate, and there are often collateral implications. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi ZZuuzz, could you do something more about this editor? Your block [2] has had no effect on the abuse. Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind--I see that it has been addressed now. Thanks, JNW (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. Don't hesitate to report this vandal in the future. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What should I in fact have done? Whois? Where's the template? And should I have blocked for a longer time? Doug Weller (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Which one, the one discussed before? In that particular case I would not have bothered with a whois template, as the results are not very informative. Sometimes they are useful for schools, organisations, ISPs, or long term vandals. See Category:Shared IP header templates. After sufficient warnings I would probably have blocked for 24 hours. Regarding (talk · contribs · block log) everything seems to be in order. The template {{schoolblock}} in the block log can be useful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant (talk · contribs · block log) where you put the shared template on. I missed out that step. What should I have done? Whois and then when the school came up a template? Thanks again. Doug Weller (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It's normally one of the first things to check where there is an IP vandalising so much. Click on the WHOIS link at the bottom of the IP talk page or contribs page. See the host name is fran-pat01.eu.dodea.edu, and that the organisation is school-related. Slap on the template. Block. In no particular order. Ideally those warning the vandals should be adding the template, as mentioned at Wiki: Vandalism. I wouldn't say there's discrimination against schools, but the template certainly expedites future blocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've just used the schoolblock template on a library as that's what had been used before. I was kind, only 1 week.:-) Third block though. Doug Weller (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

why on earth did u feel my change of the rushmoor school page was wrong and do you even go to the school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.183.96 (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Per the A7 template, I thought schools (in particular this is a secondary school), don't qualify for a speedy under that criterion. While I agree it needed blp attention, am I missing something wouldn't a prod/afd be a better approach to the remaining issues with the article? – Zedla (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right, and among the many thousands of secondary school articles I've attended it's the only one I've ever speedied. It consisted of a single sentence and a problematic history. Feel free to start it over again but please don't restore the old one. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

are you sure? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That was my intention. Feel free to renew it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't matter to me. It's jsut that I have occasionally blocked people for shorter times than I originally intended, and I wanted to make sure that you hadn't. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Such people are very likely to appear before us again, hopefully when there is more time to look at them properly. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Zzuuzz, is this vandal [3] deserving of a talk page block? Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. One likes to allow a certain amount of latitude for user talk pages, but not as forums for personal insults...even if the persons are politicians. JNW (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
If only British politics were so exciting, I might have even been roused to read it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Consider yourself fortunate. Right now in the States we could use a little less excitement. Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I got one in email too. I believe that this was a Checkuser-based block originally; therefore I'm not going to be the one to unblock as I can't review the evidence. Daniel Case (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Scratch that. I was the one who made the block, based on a report to AIV. Perhaps we need Checkuser here. You want to make that request or should I? Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind? I'm a bit busy elsewhere right now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Done. Feel free to add to it if necessary. I've told Porterfield in email that we'll be doing this. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser came back positive, and found three other socks we didn't know about. Steven's blocked for a week and the five socks are indefblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I want a second opinion regarding the Environmentalism section in the article Beliefs and ideology of Osama bin Laden. Asking you since you are an experienced user. My confusion is in two areas:

1. The opening sentence in this section is "Osama bin Laden, and his aides have, on more than one occasions, denounced the United States for damaging the environment". I think a wikilink will be good for "damaging the environment". Is Environmental degradation a good link for this phrase? I mean will it be right to pipelink Environmental degradation for the words "damaging the environment", i.e. damaging the environment? Environmental degradation includes many processes and I am not sure if the US is responsible for all those, but in general we call Environmental degradation to denote any damage to the environment.
2. The wording suggests that the US is really responsible for Environmental degradation as opposed to an opinion. Since it is the personal opinion of Laden, is there any better wording? I am confused. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the issues you raise. Let me have a little think about it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I blocked 220.245.180.135 (talk · contribs) which was the exit server for 123.243.236.122:3128. Although it currently doesn't lead to that IP anymore, 220.x still shows open ports 80 and 3128, so I suspect it could be the exit server of a different proxy. Someone emailed me about this, so would you consider it safe to unblock the IP or just grant the person IP block exemption? Spellcast (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I just found out it's listed at WP:OP. The person who emailed me was someone different though. Spellcast (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I've granted IPBE for now and unblocked 123.243.236.122 (see my recent contribs/logs). The proxy on 220..:3128 is closed - this looks like a caching proxy of a large ISP, so there may be a proxy floating around on its network. I've yet to look closely, but I think a softblock may be in order.. even if there's a rogue entry IP somewhere. Happy to hear your views... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
PS, everyone, open ports doth not a proxy make. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course not, that's why I always test the IPs on open proxy lists. It's not uncommon for exit servers to have multiple entry IPs (but if one isn't working, it's likely the others aren't to). Anyway, if this IP isn't accessible for say a week, I wouldn't mind softblocking or even unblocking. Spellcast (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm obviously aware of your proxy testing, which seems generally fine (I won't mention range blocks :) ). Elsewhere I've seen many IPs blocked as proxies just because they have a port open. The IP which was open here has a DNS which suggests it's static, which leads me to think it's probably closed instead of moved. I haven't had time to search for it though. The collateral from this block seems likely to be fairly high, and the risk of abuse seems relatively low, so it would probably be good to adjust the block sooner rather than later. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
So I take it there won't be opposition to unblocking in the next day or so? And if there's problems with those hosting IP blocks, please say so. I don't think the issue of how many open proxies must a hosting service have before deciding to block its range has gotten much discussion anywhere. Spellcast (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please see this thread. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello zzuuzz. I did not enable this new blocking option intentionally, but accidently: I usually use User:Animum's blocking script. When blocking an user/an IP with this script, the new blocking option seems to be enabled per default. :-/ Therefore I removed this script from my monobook.js and asked Animum for fixing the script. Finally I would like to thank you a lot for this message. Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What particular misuses? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That was speedy! Thanks! Ben Arnold (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Your talk page happened to be on my watchlist. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Monsieur, my edits on Xuxa article are true! Use eny search engine like Google and you'll see that she has already starred such a movie. Why not left it? Shouldn't truth be told? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.68.83.254 (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Next you'll be telling me that Karl Marx was a gay leader.[4] Wikipedia requires reliable sources to support such assertions, and your opinions about the reasons for her dating certain individuals must be left out. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so have a look at this, s'il vous plait: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amor_Estranho_Amor.. See "Polêmica" section? Let me translate it: "Amor Estranho Amor" is polemic due to the fact that the actress Xuxa sexually assaults a 12 years old boy, actor Marcelo Ribeiro. A stain in the TV show host's career that is self-declared "Queen of little kids". [...]. Isn't it enough? If you'd please, watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBI3ZhRLiDY&feature=related. With the suggestive title of "Xuxa só para grandinhos" ("Xuxa only for big kids"), a parody on "Xuxa só para baixinhos" (Xuxa only for little kids) DVD. Now, if you still claim that all these proofs are false, from these two options, one: or are not you wanting to opens your eyes to truth or you want to shut people's eyes. Remember, information is a democratic right that should be protected.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.68.75.86 (talk • contribs)
You will please note that I haven't said anything is false, but that it is not reliably sourced. Neither a Wikipedia article, nor a YouTube video are reliable sources. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess you have never stepped on Brazil. It's universally known here that Xuxa has indeed starred that movie. See a Google search: http://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&rlz=1T4GZHZ_pt-BR___BR245&q=Amor+estranho+amor+Xuxa&meta=. Ok, people may lie on the internet, but how come a 'myth' would gain such repercution? If there are 79 k results, it's more than ovious that it would be pretty hard for a myth to gain such repercution. Furthermore, if searched the same engine, at "Images", you'll easily find the film poster of "Amor Estranho Amor". As I said, it is widely known in Brazil. There are, even, videos in which she talks about the famigerate movie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwc0J-193U0. Once again, you may say YouTube is not a reliable source, but it would be impossible to find exact covers for Xuxa and for Amaury Jr. (a well-known Brazilian interviewer). It is a fact, and as such you cannot revert or do anything but letting the truth be told on her article. If you propose that this information should be supressed, you will be blaming the word Encyclopedia, the word truth and the memory of Diderot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.68.71.131 (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Now find some sources which says that s/he is transsexual, transvestite, LBGT, or a porn star. Perhaps you have some sources for the Laura Bush article[5] as well? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've commited mistakes such as altering some article texts, but a mistake of mine cannot justify that a true information (that she played a role in the porn movie "Amor Estranho Amor) be siply supressed. And you said "Now find some sources which say that she is [...] a porn star". Come on, if all those sources are not enough to proof that she took part in "Amor Estranho Amor", I may suppose that or you are illetrate, or you think a movie with a naked woman that assaults a 12-year old boy is not porn or you really do not want people to know that she acted in such a honorable movie.
Ok, I shall understand your silence as a sign of agreement. Then, please, don't mess up with me, with Truth, withWisdom. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.68.104.58 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about regex, but a person has asked to add these two links to the blacklist and it looks like a good req at User_talk:MBisanz#Request_for_blacklisting, you've edited the list at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist before, could you add them? Also, isn't there a whitelist for that other link that has 1 valid use? MBisanz ^talk 15:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good looking out on fixing my script for me. :-) east718 // talk // email // 22:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

“Utility theory of value” was created as “original research”. It would be fine as a redirect to “Utility” or to “Marginal utility”, but its creator reverts its redirection, turning it back into (incompetent) “original research”.

It would probably be fine to delete it and then create a redirect of the same name. —SlamDiego_←T 19:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It seems like a valid redirect to me, and also a valid topic. If someone typed in "Utility theory of value" into the searchbox, as seems evidently possible, then they should be taken somewhere relevant. Speedy deleting the article (whether subsequently redirecting or not) will not prevent its recreation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a well established theory of value, based upon utility, but it's treated in “Marginal utility” and in “Marginalism”. The creator of “Utility theory of value” has formulated a theory of his own which he somehow feels superior.

I suspect that a person interested in value theory based upon utility would first go to “Utility”. In any case, I know of no overwhelming reason not to have a redirect, but we need something that isn't so trivially returned to the “original research”, which is why I suggested first deleting the article and then creating a redirect.

I have launched an AfD discussion, as this seems the strongest way to resolve this matter. —SlamDiego_←T 20:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Consensus and input from others is the way to cement it, whether through AfD or some other way. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. What was wrong with the addition of Mochica jewelry in the Jewelry page? You reverted the changes including the mention to the Mochica culture of Peru. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattych (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I don't believe I did. See [6]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I'm sorry. Pattych (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you think, possible web based proxy? Spellcast (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My first guess would be that it's a closed filtering proxy used by educational institutions. I expect their security is good. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I also suspected 72.249.135.21 (talk · contribs), but it's probably the same as the above. Spellcast (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, when you go to http://72.249.135.21 or http://72.249.135.22, it says "You have been blocked due to abuse." Does this suggest that a web proxy could've once been hosted on these IPs? Spellcast (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't get that - I just get the authentication page. Have you been trying something you shouldn't :) ? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh noes you got me :P Anyway, as long as they're not currently functioning as an OP, it's all good. Spellcast (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I told you their security was good :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you do this? If you do it anywhere again, YOU WILL BE BLOCKED. entertainU (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I was reverting a vandal, but was undecided whether to revert both of them so I left the decision to you. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thx 4 protectin kats favorite fud!

 

Dreadstar haz given u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promote WikiLovez and hopefully thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd the WikiLovez by givin someone else Cheezburger, whethr it be someone youz have had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud friend.
Happy munchins!

Thanks. The protection's only temporary, and unrelated to its history - I had to keep it out of mainspace for a while. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for Alkwingle and Tomherrell's messing around, we were sharing a public computer, taking it in turns to edit using an open proxy since Wikipedia was physically banned on the terminals as a "social networking site" (weird, I know!!). I did not recruit them here, by the way. I also have a completely different agenda from those two. I was teaching them about one of my favourite sites. Anyway, I've no malicious intentions here, but would rather help out this wiki. mw:User talk:Walmwutter --Walmwutter (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

For saving my user page from the vandals! Much appreciated :) --RazorICE 10:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Anytime! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

i dont know how to add the url. can u do that for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burhan Ahmed (talk • contribs) 10:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. The code to do it is: {{subst:Nothanks-sd|Image:Pu mono.JPG}}, though it messes up the talk page link. I think technically the notice should go on their commons talk page as the image and its deletion are there. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

How did you know the IP range you just blocked was a school? All i can see for 151.199.196.129 is that its Verizon. Thanks 220.239.56.131 (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Henrico County Public Schools are regular customers. See [7][8] They have a lot more ranges I might block in the future, including [9][10]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page! Themfromspace (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey there! Just a note thanking you for supporting my RFA which successfully passed with 60 supports, 0 opposes and 2 neutrals. I hope I'll be able to live up to everyone's expectations, and thank you for trusting me! All the best, Ale_Jrb^talk 20:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please check out User:Theloot321. This user has made one edit and it's to 98.219.177.167 talk page. Not sure what it's all about, but the account was created while 98.219.177.167 was listed on AIV yesterday. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 17, 2008 @ 12:04

Apparently the edit is correct.[11] It's not unheard of for people to create an account to fix or report vandalism, nor for blocked vandals to create an account to tag sockpuppets - but they are usually more specific in the latter case. There's not really much more to go on right now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I figure it is just a sock of 98.219.177.167, but I thought I would make you aware in case they "wake up" later on this morning. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 17, 2008 @ 12:10

Hi Zzuuzz, it just occurred to me: can or ought User talk:Mr. Colonghi has mental retardation be speedy deleted as an attack page? Cheers, JNW (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, yes. I planned to do that in due course. There are so many sockpuppets floating around at the moment it may be of administrative interest for a while yet. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, did you have a look at the contribs of those IPs that were indef blocked? I think you should have a word with the same blocking vandal about it. Some of them i dont think are warranted, the bottom line is they can always be blocked again in case of trouble. I know the admin has allowed account creation but this is a wiki. You would know blocking some open proxies are not even indefed, whats your opinion? The admin is old school, maybe you should give him a word. I see more and more IPs being indef blocked and i think its time to change the WP:BLOCK page "IP addresses should rarely if ever be blocked indefinitely." Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 11:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, yes I agree fully, but didn't have time or inclination at the time to follow them up. There's quite a few more like it at CAT:INDEFIPs which I'll be addressing at some point (the point of tagging). In my view the number of indefip blocks is actually thankfully reducing, and except for real-noob admins, most new admins won't indef them. Both the WP:BLOCK and WP:IP pages have mentioned this for a while now, but this should probably be made clearer. I've been intending a few other improvements to those pages - again, when I get around to it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've noticed a wide range of IP's redirecting his user and talk page to Asperger Syndrome. Is there any chance you can semi-protect?

thanks;

cf38^talk 16:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've already done his talk page, but there has only been one edit to his userpage. I would prefer to wait to see if there could be two. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Noticed your 31hr block on this IP - since this school started vandalising the Monday morning after it had come back off a 1 year block, would it be easier to just drop in another year's block? Black Kite 19:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I prefer to see a pattern of continued repeated vandalism before applying the longblock - it has only been active for two days in the last year, and a lot can change in a year. Obviously if it resurfaces in the near future a longer block will apply. If not, a longer block would be inappropriate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember the vandal user at the 122.2.176.0/20 range? He's back! This time, 122.2.189.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) vandalized the Survivor Philippines article by inserting misinformation. Looks like he wasn't hampered by the 10-day block. (BTW, this same message was posted at WP:AN/I, but I also decided to tell this to you directly as well because you're the one who blocked the range 11 days ago.) - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

122.2.176.0/20 (talk · contribs · block log) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure this guy is yet another krabs sock. Strongsauce (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Also this guy Strongsauce (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

They both have the same MO as the Krabs sock: create articles on Hannah Montana/Bratz/Dancing with the Stars related videogames and mis-attribute them to random videogame companies or just copy information straight from IGN or some random press release. Also adding random Spanish soundtrack listings to pages as seen here Strongsauce (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, looks about right. I'll have to take a closer look. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi these two users are still active and still causing the same problems as the Krabs socks. They are also doing this over on the Simple Wikipedia page (brief example[12]). Is there something that can be done about them? Strongsauce (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You can help by identifying any not just unsourced but false info, or any edit-warring between herself. It helps to justify the blocks. Notes to self:
• (talk · contribs · block log)
• (talk · contribs · block log)
• (talk · contribs · block log)
• (talk · contribs · block log)
• (talk · contribs · block log)

yea :) and Thank You, been waiting a while for that. Should help contain this vandalism and keep it down. :) Govvy (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This guy has moved half-a-dozen or more pages between userspace and articlespace and redirects, between user talk space and article talkspace and redirect page talkspace, etc. I think it's the same guy, creating article after article about himself and spinning them off. I need to restore some of what you deleted from the previous iterations of this article, which he had moved into Talk:Daniel Michael Johnson (the talkspace of a redirect page)! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can figure out how to clean up the mess, help yourself. I don't suppose it's related to this guy is it? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

...for the talk page cleanup. It's whack-a-mole time again. -- Longhair\^talk 08:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As the user mentioned (and this is worth checking out)

You're onto something, but as Avi mentioned previously, you won't find any socks or legit accounts for that matter. Hmm, unfortunate. Seeing as your the self imposed detective on this case, I thought that i'll give you some hints (One day John Jacob Wilson Alueminous went to Chapin-ILL and saw VaughanWatch)

That's all for now, I understand that your obligated by wiki polict to WP:DENY, however I urge you to look for the coincidences (and after all, it might just end up earning you a defender-of-the-wiki-barnastar!) Until next time --Fall out baboon (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can you explain exactly how WP:RPP works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jie BlogsZ (talk • contribs)

Hi, see the instructions at the top of the page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Just kidding, tool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bidyuk She (talk • contribs) 09:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If you do not nominate this for deletion, I may do so. The author removed my prod without fixing the problems. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Help yourself. It appears the author, who is probably in the best place to identify and provide multiple independent references, has not been able to do so. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

seems to be a script-error, i hope i caused no harm. Happy editing, abf /talk to me/ 19:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry about my inappropriate articles sir. Willosimo (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

For the sprot. That was quite the vandal spree. --Bfigura's puppy (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting Tyran Richard! I tried to backtrack and restore to a "stable" version but I found it quite impossible. What happened there? It looked like multiple IPs "attacked" (vandalizing) the page at the same time over and over again? Nsaa (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It seems the article was probably the subject of a discussion on some forum somewhere. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down a section on 'allegation of cruelty' as subsection under 'criticism' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, the summary of dispute can be found at [13], please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that 'alleged' bias may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you unblocked an IP I had blocked. I agree with your reasoning (in fact, I only noticed because I was going to unblock it myself, and got an error message), but I was hoping you could drop me a message next time, just so I know another admin has objected.--Tznkai (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

92.104.130.73 (talk · contribs · block log) - An indef-block of a dynamic IP that was used for nine minutes, blocked without warning or tagging and with the reason of 'Out.'. I would hope any admin would object to such a block, indeed I realised it was obviously a mistake. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Warning was unnecessary in that case, but you're likely correct about the rest. At any rate, I'd just appreciate notification next time.--Tznkai (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you analyze if this webiste should be blocked or not. Please.

It has arrived here because I put in lot's of wikipedias, and ishouldn't do it. But I only want to undo my error, so you could see the page Park Güell and the website: http://parkguell.net84.net/eng/

The bot page is: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/XWiki/parkguell.net84.net#Discussion

Bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobCatalà (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey ZZuuzz, this user, after getting a "decline" from me at the Whitelist talk page (since it had been blacklisted at meta for abuse at multiple wikis), has been canvassing multiple admins hoping to get the answer he wants. See discussions here and here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't answer. (I won't delete it, but as I've done it)--RobCatalà (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Northern Romania _{Pentru nordul României} 01:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Zzuuzz, you got involved in a discussion of appropriate links at the Opt-out talk page. This isn't the same question but it's the same user, about article Credit card fraud, and I want to be fair to him but follow our rules as well. I state the question in detail on my own talk page here. In summary, he's uploaded a video that's currently included in the article and wants to add a reference link to his site in its caption. Without realizing he was the video's uploader, if that makes a difference, I removed the reference link he added (my edit), with summary "remove promotional link adding no value as a citation, the video speaks for itself and is also well-supported by the text alongside it". He has politely argued to reinstate the link. Thanks for your help. --CliffC (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi CliffC, I've yet to get around to look into this properly, but I believe User:Openinformation might have some questions to answer about the copyright status of these videos. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here. Keep up the good work. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I see that you are pretty active in WP:OP, so may I ask that 210.87.254.42 be unblocked? This is my school server, and can be accessed by all of the school's computers, which includes computers from 2 campuses. For the article on the school, see International Christian School. Thanks. Leujohn ^(talk) 04:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. What's up with this fool? Pretending to have been blocked in order to avoid being blocked? (Or do I have beans up my nose?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It was already blocked. Adding the template was merely housekeeping, done at the same time as the open state of the proxy was verified. None taken. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Got it. I wonder if he's related to the person who, minutes later, added a vivid homosexual fantasy of his to my user page. The timing might just have been coincidental, but this seems unlikely. -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and the rest. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Virginia Hey is not Virginia Hey. Its clearly a "clever" vandal that seems to have you, amoungst others, completely fooled. I suggest for the sake of the article you revert your edits and consider blocking this user. Who is clearly a vandal and in any case has a clear CoI. Also, most BLP articles have unsourced DoB and middle names in them. Thanks JS (chat) 13:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please review carefully WP:AGF and WP:BLP. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess another vandal wins then. All to common nowadays :-( JS (chat) 13:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
No, seriously, please review them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Neither of those apply as User:Virginia Hey is not Virginia Hey. You've sided with the vandal. Its a common thing these days and i've accepted it and moved on. JS (chat) 13:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
What reason do you have for this assertion, have you taken steps to verify the user account, and why would a vandal want to remove a date of birth? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks for blocking the User:Runtshit socks. May I suggest poking someone to run an ip check to save you some time? Ironholds (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for reverting some vandalism on my user page today! Killiondude (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your revert. However, per User:Lar/Eeyore Policy I put it back, and replied. ++Lar: t/c 13:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your policy is to reinstate harassment? I am surprised. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
My policy is to leave everything unless it's really egregious. The clickability was removed, and the comment was rebutted, but I prefer not to remove criticism from my talk page... that doesn't mean that I agree or even think it appropriate, but that's my thinking. Maximum openness and transparency. ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
We would probably disagree about the egregiousness then. The clickability would have to be removed since I've blacklisted it for its continuing part in egregious harassment. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely no reason for it to remain clickable, totally agree (and that's already been done). I'll run it past Gwen and see what she thinks regarding egregiousness. I'm not completely inflexible, I just feel strongly about transparency as far as my own talk page goes. Thanks for your efforts to make the wiki a better place! ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't realized it was originally rangeblocked. Sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently created just to attack you, vandalised your talk page and created an attack article (recreated rather). I've blocked him indefinitely as a VOA. dougweller (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged Doug. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)