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)

Are you serious? I am following you around? I cannot even make a single edit anymore without having you on my back ever since I first reverted your disruption on 'Republic of Ireland', and later on 'Itinerant': [1] [2]. You have made every effort to keep this article from being protected so you could continue disrupting it. That is why you are here, not because of those IPs who are long-blocked. General Hindsight (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

General, be careful not to follow Rashers around. You know what I'm talking about. Rashers, these pages aren't exactly being trashed. I would be more interested to see your objections to the content. As for the current matter, see WP:EW, WP:DR, and that part of WP:NPA where it says to comment on the content. The current article is an improvement, but both versions are frankly in need of work. As a general principle I won't fully protect an article when one of the warring parties has requested it. You need to sort out your differences, not lock your preferred reversion in place. A talk page is the best place to do that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above, I don't know what you are talking about, but that is beside the point. I do not care about the article on a personal level; I was rather trying to avoid disruption when Rashers started reverting it to a dated revision that is in a much worse condition. If you look at my contributions, you will see that Rashers is far from the only user here that I have reverted and issued warnings, but he is the only one at the moment who discarded those warnings and continued reverting. If you don't care for the article either, that is fine. I just thought you would want to prevent disorder. My mistake. General Hindsight (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest detailing an explanation on the article's talk page. As I mentioned I consider the current version an improvement, and I am only really interested in improved content, as we all should be. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What detailing is needed? You said it yourself: the current version is an improvement. That was my point from the beginning: to stop (first anonymous, now long time) users from disrupting it. Administrators take care of that, or am I missing something? Once again, I do not care for the content, as long as it is compliant with Wikipedia (the current version seems more like that). I am trying to keep it improved, not trashed. That is why I asked for your assistance. General Hindsight (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more interested to hear from Rashers at this point, but if you explain how it's an improvement on the article's talk page, what you're trying to do, what else could be added, etc, then burden shifts indisputably onto whoever reverts you to provide justification for reverting. You overestimate administrators - they are here to tell everyone to sort it out themselves. Disputes are resolved through civil discussion on talk pages; not edit summaries, not template warnings, and not through blocks or protection either. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that so? Then would you mind telling me why administrators block users who continue causing disruption? Or if that doesn't help, why do they protect pages (you do both of these things on a daily basis)? Or maybe you can explain why an administrator deleted a day's work of legitimate editing from Cabinet Secretary (India)? I would say it is you who overestimates administrators. General Hindsight (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Those revisions were apparently deleted because they were copypasted from teh internet. Dispute resolution is really a job for the editors, the community, outside opinions, people without the banstick. When people don't listen to what others repeatedly tell them, that's when the admins should turn up to try to enforce what the others have been saying. We could debate the role of admins all day, but I've explained the best way forward. I am still waiting to hear from Rashers, who no doubt will see this discussion again. BTW as a courtesy, you've been mentioned here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well technically, everything is pasted from the internet or elsewhere, concepts are rarely developed anymore, especially not on Wikipedia where original research is not allowed, but that is not the point here. My point was that administrators do pretty much what they want to do, as do you. As for my mention on Rashers link I have clicked on it before, as if that's some kind of proof that I am stalking him or that I am some other user's that I've never heard of sock. THIS is coming from the same guy who accused me of harassment and following him around. From the looks of it, he's been going from one end of the internet to another just to find some vague crosspoints of that user Lorielpid and all his/her supposed socks, which naturally included me because I dared to revert thy holiness RashersTierney who shalt not be reverted without consequences. That is all very interesting and amusing, and I bet Rashers would be the first in line to claim 9/11 was an inside job. From my standpoint, I consider this matter closed. I have moved on the moment you've indicated that you don't want to get involved in your first response. I have put that article on my watch list and if those disruptions occur again, I will do my best to revert them and keep the better revision up, and you do what you do best. Have a nice day. General Hindsight (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Q.E.D. RashersTierney (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Greg James (DJ)

Hi, I noticed that you added semi protection to the article Greg James (DJ) for BLP issues sounding un-sourced info about his personal life. I have just reverted some more edits to that effect, do you think Pending changes would work better for this article? Pol430 talk to me 20:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I did think that just after I'd semi'd it, and I'll adjust that now. Note that the information was referenced[3], but the edits surrounding it are what triggered the protection. Just to be clear, I've no objections if it goes back dated and referenced, then nor am I bothered if it stays out either. But there's a little too much interest in the section for my liking, not to mention the vandalism. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:OP ready to be cleaned out?

Hi Zzuuzz. Many cases appear ready to be closed, one way or the other. Jayron32 just posted at AN that there was a backlog at OP. I would be willing to do some blocks on cases that appear likely proxies to me, but leave them to be formally closed by someone with more expertise. In some cases it seems that you've basically decided, but haven't formally closed them. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Be my guest if so inclined. I probably won't get around to it for a few weeks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Proxy check

Hey Zzuuzz. Could you please check if the following are OPs: 124.115.214.202 (talk · contribs) and 166.111.120.63 (talk · contribs)? Elockid ^(Talk) 15:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)124.115.214.202 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed open proxy on port 80.. 166.111.120.63 (talk · contribs) is also confirmed as an open proxy on port 80. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Incorrect. They are both running web services, which is why port 80 is open. It is wise to actually check the reason for a port being open first. However, because they are running terminal services and a number of other services, they can be used as proxies anyway. Just not from port 80. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm afraid you're not seeing the whole picture. They are running a misconfigured webserver on port 80. Change your browser settings to use those IPs on port 80 as a proxy if you don't believe me. The webserver responds to GET requests for any webpage, not just the pages that it hosts. I would have used it to leave a message on wikipedia, but both accounts are blocked. I checked myself and was able to browse the internet as those IPs and verified using whatismyip.com. They are both  Confirmed open proxies. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Sociology Newsletter: III (December 2010)

Sociology Project • News • December 2010
Spreading the meme since August 2006
The Sociology WikiProject third newsletter is out! According to our April mini-census, we have 15 active members, 6 semi-active ones and 45 inactive. Out of those, 4 active, 3 semi-active and 1 inactive members have added themselves to corresponding categories since the mini-census. The next one is planned, roughly, for sometime next year. The membership list has been kept since 2004. On that note, nobody has ever studied WikiProjects from the sociological perspective... if you are interesting in researching Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Research and wiki-research-l listerv. Moving from research to teaching, did you know that many teachers and instructors are teaching classes with Wikipedia? This idea is getting support from the Wikimedia Foundation, and some really useful tools have been created recently. I have experience with that, having taught several undergad classes, so feel free to ask me questions on that! And as long as I am talking about professional issues, if any of you is going to any sociological conferences, do post that to our project - perhaps other members are going there too? In other news: the a automated to do listing reported in the April issue went down shortly afterwards, but seems to be on the path to reactivation. We still have an active tag and assess project, and comparing the numbers to the April report, we have identified about 350 more sociology-related articles (from 1,800 to 2,150) and assessed about 100 (from 1,300 to 1,400). We now have a listing of most popular sociology-related pages. It is updated on the 1st of every month, starting with August, and reports which of our sociology-tagged articles are most frequently read. Of course, GIGO holds true, so after looking at it right now and trying to determine what is our most popular article, my first action was to shake my head and remove Criminal Minds (which, perhaps not too surprisingly, outranks all sociology articles in period tested). Second item I noticed it this month's Industrial Revolution, beating Criminal Minds, that moved from close to 30th position in August/September, to 9th in October and 2nd in November. If you'd like to discuss this or any other trends, please visit WT:SOCIOLOGY! Finally, with the reactivation of Article Alerts, we are getting our own here. Bookmark that page so you can keep track of sociology related deletion debates, move debates, good and feature article discussions, and more. Our first task force (Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology/Social movements task force) was created (1 June 2010). If you have basic or better graphic skills, our projects needs a dedicated barnstar (award) (currently the closest we can get is the Society Barnstar. As always, I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions.
Authored by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC) You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a recipient of WikiProject Sociology Newsletter (Opt-out).

Please block these two proxies

• 98.204.74.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This is a proxy opened on port 8085.
• 74.112.4.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This is a proxy opened on port 3128.