User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 22

Beware! This user is a known talk page stalker.

User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 22/header

Does this look like our obsessive friend to you?

I wasn't able to discern if it was a proxy or not, but I just reverted some of the typical stylistic changes on Ayumi's article. Syrthiss (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

82.13.83.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Behaviourally similar, but I think different enough. Technically, I think not. See also 82.13.83.170 (talk · contribs). There's been plenty of other socks around though, as I'm sure you know. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, ok thx. Syrthiss (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Open proxy

Hi. I've run into a bit of a conflict with an IP at Rogue (vagrant), namely 199.85.205.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). It is flagged as using OP at Wikipedia:Open proxy detection at CA. This terminology is new to me, but it seems this is not a legitimate way to edit. Sorry if that sounds completely naive, or maybe I've gotten the wrong end of the stick. Can you please advise. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. See WP:PROXY. It's only really illegitimate if it's used to evade scrutiny or blocks etc (no sign of that here that I can see), though that won't stop the IPs getting blocked. That doesn't necessarily mean the user gets blocked. An edit war is an edit war, no matter how the other person is connecting to the site. I tend to agree with their last edit summary. Are you really editing to improve the article, or to keep up with your first edit to the article? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Further advice: add a reference. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I've no interest in edit warring nor in discussions through summaries, and reverted only because I could see no reason for the material not to be included, (my first revert was not of an edit of mine). I've tried to start a discussion at the TP, but no response. My main concern has been about trying to structure the content. As things stand, it may be more appropriate to merge with Vagrancy (people), but that's another issue. Advice noted. RashersTierney (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope Zzuuzz doesn't mind me responding here, but I just caught this while looking through RashersTierney's contributions list. I realize this IP is an open proxy, but I happen to agree with Zzuuzz when he says that is no reason for a block as long as the edits are helpful and constructive.

Anyway, the main reason why I came here was to question RashersTierney's real intentions (again, probably not the right place to do so, so I apologize). As Zzuuzz already found out, RashersTierney did nothing with that article but reverted edits to keep the previous, "flawed" version up for as long as possible, and he even went as far as to file a request to the administrators to semi-protect the article. RashersTierney's intention to do all this might not have been to instigate an edit war and "keep his right", but that is ultimately what happened.

You (RashersTierney) also mention that it would be appropriate to merge the article with another one on a similar subject. Yet while I was looking further through your list of contributions, I have noticed that you warned every single editor every time they reverted you that they are contributing to vandalism of that article. If you dedicated a mere quarter of the time that you have used to issue all those warnings, you could instead have made a helpful contribution, and do the suggested merger for yourself.

That is all I have to say on my behalf. Best to all. 199.85.205.114 (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, just to clarify, I did mention that it won't stop the IPs getting blocked, as the open proxies are probably already being used by some banned vandal to do some socking. That's different from a user block, but most won't appreciate the difference. That, and me being a bit busy is probably the only reason they haven't been blocked already. Editing from open proxies is not a good long term strategy. My advice to you is to use more constructive edit summaries and also to add a reference. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for sorting out those IP addresses that I reported at WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by IP user. Assuming that they will hop to another proxy at some point, is it best to just report them to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, or is there some means for me to check for an open proxy beforehand to avoid wasting folks time? --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:OP would be happy to deal with them, but it doesn't offer fastest response you'll have seen. As for preliminary checking, Google is your friend. Proxy IPs worth blocking usually tend to throw up quite distinctive search results. See also this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Guide to checking open proxies page was just what I was looking for. I've got port scanning tools that I've used in the past to check out security for clients, but as I'm in the UK, the law makes them practically unusable now. I'll just reconfigure the browser proxy settings on a spare machine and check for a suspect OP if that editor shows up in future. Thanks again. --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Proxy check

I see that you blocked 218.248.29.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that was used by a Use:Ravi22oct sockpuppet an open proxy. I'm not too familiar with the proxy checking going on with Wikipedia, so I was wondering if you can you check out 116.74.112.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), too? Same sockpuppet usage. I'm wondering if there are some open proxies involves. See the list of IPs at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ravi22oct for all of the IPs that I've tagged. Thanks! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look and reblocked two of them. I'm inclined to think 116.74.112.103 is a 'home' IP, assuming they're in India. I also refer you to my response to the thread above. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I will stop by WP:OP should I find any more, but it is good to know that this sockpuppet uses proxies. I had suspected they do with all of the IPs from different ISPs that they used, but it is good to have confirmation. Thanks again. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Air charter

I wasn't sure about the blog link. Thanks for double checking my edit! -- role^player 16:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember anonymous user 80.42.227.142, who was editing people's birth & death dates?

Currently active as 80.42.239.106, was active last month as 80.42.236.235; both have been pulling the same schtick with ancient Chinese dudes. --Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

80.42.239.106 (talk · contribs). Yep that looks like him. Some of the dates seem to match up with other fairly established edits on other language wikis, so it's a little difficult to identify these as vandalism. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Anglican Church Grammar School

Hi Zzuuzz. Just a query on your recent removal of content from the Anglican Church Grammar School article on the basis that the non-guilty plea made the news non-notable. Surely whether the defendant has been proven innocent or not isn't too relevant to the subject matter? The issue was covered by several sources. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 10:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I left a link to WP:NOTNEWS (see #4). Coverage by several sources isn't really an indication of notability. Whether it says something about the school is more relevant, and in the grand scheme of things, with these findings of fact, I don't think it does. Unfounded allegations are made all the time here and there, but that doesn't make them worth repeating in an encyclopaedia article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Argh

You seem intelligent enough to realize why I'm going to have to revdel your recent post to AN/I commenting on my deletion rationales.

Because I'm going to have to revdel your recent post to AN/I commenting on my deletion rationales.

Think about it, okay? This is precisely the sort of stuff that should not be pointed out. DS (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Gone but not forgotten hopefully. You should probably also revdelete back to the first response to the thread. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

David Howell (chess player)

Just to say thanks for a speedy response even if I didn't follow normal procedure! JRPG (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't sure if or where you were going to go next, so I thought I'd just get it out the way first. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Need assistance

I would appreciate it if you could take a quick look into Itinerant article's history, and put on full-protection for a few months or more.

After recent anonymous-IP disruption and temporary protection on 22 November, a long-term user is now reverting the article to a 3 months old revision that is much worse. He also removed all attempts I've made to stop from his talk page. General Hindsight (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind this hoaxer. This is a just a continuation of disruption from the proxy IPs at 'Open proxy' above. They taken to following me around the project since I filed an SPI. Please regard him/her/them accordingly. RashersTierney (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)