User talk:zzuuzz

	Beware! This user is a known talk page stalker.

Welcome to zzuuzz's talk page. zzuuzz will probably reply on this page to messages left here unless you indicate you would prefer otherwise or you look like you might need the notification or if the discussion is actually happening elsewhere. Please add a new section to the end, and sign your message using ~~~~. Thanks. -- zzuuzz

Request for revision history deletion

I would like to protect my privacy by removing revisions of my User:Lee317 page which were made before 17 October 2011. Prior to that date there is information on there which discloses my identity and is readily available. Your help to wipe this is appreciated.

I appreciate

your fast action at Willem de Kooning. The odd thing is that he is not even on my watchlist, I got to the article for Bronze sculpture - where he was listed with a funky link, but did not (opinion) belong. So I fixed the link, went there and found that mess. Thanks again, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I find the 'Undo' link is helpful in only very limited circumstances. You might want to review the other options available at Help:Reverting. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Usually the Undo button is enough, but in this case it was not. I am not really a computer person and find that other options often just confuse me. However it is also good to get some different synapses firing every now and again, and this might be one of those times. I still have not been able to do the one edit that I planned before work today. Life. What a place to live. Carptrash (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For dealing with Yourname sock. Andrew Kurish (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

TP blanking edit filter

Would there please be an edit filter to stop things like what happened here? All it would need is to check if the user is blocked and is reverting like crazy.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The edit filter is unable to detect if a user is blocked or if the page they are editing belongs to a user who is blocked. Most of the edits were by an unblocked IP. However it has given me another idea which I'll look into. A word of advice: absolutely the best thing to do is not revert as fast. It only excites and encourages them. There is a better variation of RBI called WP:BRI. Don't forget the 'I' on the end. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to let SineBot get in the way.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

SineBot is easy to work around, especially after the block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Zzuuzz. You have new messages at WT:OP.
Message added 12:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- DQ (t) (e) 12:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sectional Dedication Award

	DeltaQuad's Sectional Dedication Award
	Given to members of the community who take on huge backlogs several times, or maintaining a large part of a project. -- DQ (t) (e)

You have been nominated by User:DeltaQuad for this award for your constant contribution to the open proxy project. Thanks for picking things up while I took a cycle away from the board :). Thank you for your constant dedication to the project. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

BroadNarrow

Repeat offender, or a one off? --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the secure server is not affected...

...I've update the UKBlock template. I have also checked whether this affected the block message (as for all I know it is subst'd during the block) and it has updated. Hope this is fine? Cheers, Egg Centric 20:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks good for now. The template is used as the block message for all the 'clean' proxies affected last time which includes most major ISPs, but since they're mostly currently blocked we don't know if they currently get to see it, or if they'll be affected soon. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No edits since you lifted the block. Maybe BT have undone whatever was forcing connections to WP through the proxy. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

this block

I wondering how we can justify blocking a whole /16 as a proxy, it seems a bit extreme. Our policy seems to me to relate to Open/Anonymizing Proxies, and these do not necessarily fall into the category. Am I missing something in the policy? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not uncommon and not outwith policy. See Wikipedia:Database_reports/Range blocks for plenty more. It's like this: all the IPs in that range are servers located in a data centre in Texas, registered to "Rackspace Hosting", and used as proxies. Most are web servers, many are fully open proxies, others are just anonymising proxies. All are voluntarily and optionally used as proxies; users on unblocked IPs have a choice not to use them. Of all the IPs editing in that range, all I can see is a spambot, a proxy-using BLP troll, and a dental spammer. In fact I have also blocked 50.57/16 under the same policy and for almost exactly the same reasons. I don't make blocks like that without careful consideration, and any genuine unblock requests will always be given good consideration. If you have an example of an IP in that range that is not being used as an anonymising proxy, I'm willing to hear about it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That first referred page is a results page, not a policy page. If it is becoming our common practice, then we should be updating the policy to reflect the practice, not having undocumented policy/practice drift. The stated reasoning is in your head, and not available to others. Maybe we can get some special documentation in your user space to support those sorts of blocks and then wikilink to it. Such a practice gives some more rigour, and robustness to the process, and then if there are any exceptions then we are better placed to discuss, have a reasonable evidence base, and then also to annotate exceptions. Then we probably need to get the practice aligned with policy, or approval to broaden the policy to align with the practice. If such server farms are that problematic, then maybe it should be handled at the WMF level and get the stewards to block and annotate the ranges that you identify. Thanks for your consideration. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I would maintain that this block and the others I've pointed to have been established practice and documented at both the blocking policy and the open proxies policy for years: "Open or anonymous proxies may be blocked". I don't see the WMF or stewards doing anything useful about it. The block templates provides a reasonable enough explanation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is a proxy on that range that is being used abusively, and no collateral damage from blocking the range, then this would be fine. That seems to be the case here. Prodego ^talk 17:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Input request

You have contributed to article The Really Big Show (formerly Rizzo on the Radio). This article is currently being considered for deletion. Please consider providing input at the article's discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Really_Big_Show.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear zzuuzz,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A lovely candidate for a schoolblock

See User talk:209.175.28.130. They've lately been mauling the article on erbium. SBHarris 20:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)