User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 26

rev deletion

Hi, I'm really sorry about this, but I need you to RevDel on a problematic username. It's in my most recent contributions. DivineAlpha (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Filter 271

Hi Zzuuzz, I am a regular checker of edit filter 271 results, but in the last day it has gone crazy identifying regular vandalism, as well as many harmless edits, so that the spambot edits have become hard to find. It does not look to have changed recently, but something else has. Do you know what has happened? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this is almost certainly the systematic addition of new lines in edit summaries. If it's a problem take out the \n in the summary. I'll take a proper look later. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The format of the edit summary had also changed at the end of the beginning, whether by user input or software change I don't know. Other filters probably also rely on the check. I've removed the new line check, which was useful. The change seems like a problem, but it can be a separate one. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Well that filter output has certainly settled down now. SO thank-you! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanx

I was in the process of drafting an ANI report, which now I don't need to Mlpearc (open channel) 19:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

on the subject of vandalism

[1] [2] 119.254.84.90 (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

DTTR

Hi, Zzuuzz, I don't think that your Don't template the regulars message here would really be appropriate in the case of User:Amaury, who was either a) inexperienced enough to inadvertently leave an incorrect vandalism warning, or b) did so maliciously. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not uncommon these days, and forms part of the modern learning curve. Given enough examples, they will get tired of people pointing it out to them. My advice remains however, for practical rather than policy reasons, don't use templates on users. This one was called 'tempabuse2' you know. It explained what the sandbox was for, and asked them to look at the Introduction to Wikipedia page. If you had written that, I would have thought you were mad. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Semiprotected talk page

Zzuuzz, there is discussion ongoing (here) about whether talk pages should even be protected, and there is agreement that indefinite protection is rarely appropriate. That said, you semi-protected Talk:HI nearly two years ago, and it's long past time to lift that protection, please. For talk pages, 24 hour protection is probably better. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I'll reply here. I agree about absolutely minimal talk page protection. Please check my logs. I can say with some certainty that this page is exceptional. That said I welcome any other admin to unprotect it and watch over it, as I shall not. Please ask if you need further advice. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A user you blocked

Has been mentioned at ANI under the Ultraman heading, and your name as the blocker. I have listed several anonymous users there and request you take a look at them on the assumption you're a checkuser. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I will take a look. But you assume too much - they haven't demoted me to CheckUser. I hope not, I couldn't afford the pay cut. Remote viewing is what you get when you get to my pay grade. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I hate pestering you, but I assumed from your statement above you were going to follow up to see if there was any socking at Ultraman regarding the last 4 IP's that edited it. Please ping me to let me know if you'd prefer I take this elsewhere. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's no problem. I did take a look and was waiting for a follow-up. There's nothing I can really add. I can't say with any probability either who this user is, or, unusually, whether they are even a banned or registered user. As these are open proxies I cannot see that a CheckUser will be fruitful. I am not well placed to opine about the behaviour or the content dispute. I'll understand if you want to take it elsewhere. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Usernames

Why have you done this? --Phil Copperman (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The user is blocked and your edits violate our BLP policy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Well if he is blocked then that is that, what do you mean my edits violate BLP? Can you elaborate please? Phil Copperman (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I should have used a better edit summary for the first edit - I was concentrating on blocking a troll at the time. One does not always need to repeat, spell out and clearly reformulate, the vandalism. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

What wonders I shall make of her parts

Thank you for cleaning up that ugly mess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Bernard Matthews Farms

Hi, in view of your past interest, you may wish to comment at Talk:Bernard Matthews Farms#Proposed move. Just Chilling (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

87.6.121.181

Multiple vandal IP addresses have mentioned you in nasty ways in their vandalism, and I was just wondering if you know of the first of these vandal IPs (I linked one of them) or user if this vandal was ever registered. Dustin (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Dustin V. S. I came here about the same issue, having just deleted a comment at Wikipedia talk:Sandbox. WP:RevDel required I think. 220 of ^Borg 13:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This user has never created an account, to my knowledge. I refer to it as the sandbox troll from Italy, and have maintained non-acb blocks for several years (see user:zzuuzz/rangeblocks). I would suggest multiple range blocks in extension to what I've recently blocked, if it's causing a problem until I get a chance to deal with it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You will probably find the earliest edits in 151.49.0.0/18 (talk · contribs · block log). Trolling the sandbox since 2008 .. the sandbox troll. @Dustin V. S.: @220 of Borg: -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I see... I even have an SPI here... Dustin (talk)

Andrea Brillantes

I note that you have semi-protected the article - a rather pointless action, since the WP:BLP-violating material was being added by registered users, and (correctly) removed by an IP. Given the nature of the material, I would suggest that full protection was more appropriate - and that the material needs to be revdelled too, since it clearly shouldn't appear in the article history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I took the view that the most desperate situation was the anon vandalism, and that registered users can be treated on an individual basis if they become a persistent problem. I believe this will be highly effective in sorting the crap for the time being. I am as always pressed for time and sometimes get through things slowly, but you're probably right about the revdel. Maybe you should contact oversight. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You might like to take a look at this edit while you are at it: [3] - one of the contributors responsible for the material editing the other one's post. I detect a distinct whiff of socks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

This cosmetic change seems innocent on its own, and from all else I can reasonably see.. Though I'm sure we could probably both find guidelines indicating that one shouldn't bother. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

As for 'anon vandalism', I can't see much obvious signs of it - instead we have anon IPs removing the violations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to also see my previous comment about full protection on the talk page. I did find vandalism but mainly as I say, semi-protection will clear the mud for the time being. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/650

Hi Zzuuzz. Just going through some edit filters to trim back ones we might not need since we're hitting the cap. Are you tracking this filter or planning to use it for something? It seems pretty unwieldy for just log tracking. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No not my filter, no plans. I was looking at disabling it last time, but eventually didn't - not because I think it's useful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry, wasn't paying attention when I was figuring out who made it. Sam Walton (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Louis Belasco

I see you gave him a 3 hour block. Take a look at [4] where he changed "lesbian" to "dyke". That's the worst of some dubuious edits. Seems to be something pretty off about this guy - I don't understand the ANI disruption at all. Doug Weller (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Related sock farms

Hello. On 9 July 2015 you blocked Daniels Jerkins for abusing multiple accounts, with no mention of who the sockmaster is. Judging by this edit Daniel Jerkins, the creator of Nelson Brothers, is related to a sock farm that Bbb23 named after Max Pumpkin, the at that moment oldest known account in that lot. Doctor McMillain, the now indeffed user who bragged about Nelson Brothers (a partially hoax article that fits in with what the Pumpkin socks do) is the latest in a long row of Pumpkin socks, so maybe you and Bbb23 should compare notes, and put all the socks in the same drawer. Provided that the other blocked users in your lot fit the MO (which is adding nonsense to articles, mixed in with more serious text). Thomas.W ^talk 19:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Zzuuzz did not block Daniels Jerkins. It was Jpgordon who blocked on March 23, 2015. Zzuuzz cut off Talk page access, etc., on July 9. Daniels Jerkins has only one non-stale edit (July 5), well after being blocked. That said, Daniels Jerkins is  Confirmed to Max Pumpkin (talk · contribs · count), which is a real shame as Jerkins is significantly older than Max Pumpkin, and I don't want to go through all the work of fixing this. Perhaps Jpgordon can tell us if there are earlier accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure this was ceiling fan nonsense. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I know it's been a while, Jpgordon, but the Max Pumpkin accounts don't match the confirmed Beals accounts, both in location and otherwise. I didn't do an exhaustive cross-check against Beals, but that's what I found based on what I did. Several of the Max Pumpkin accounts claim they're Beals. I think it's nonsense based on the technical data. In any event, regardless of who's who, the important thing is the account is blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

So it was fake ceiling fan nonsense. Doesn't matter much. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hehe. Couldn't have said it any better myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I blocked and re-blocked a whole load of accounts around the same time starting with User:Alanium Value through to about User talk:94.196.246.206 (ANI request) (see deleted contribs). I've no idea about names, but I could pull out a list. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not very nice, are they? Don't bother pulling out a list. As long as they're blocked, it's fine. Now, the Max Pumpkin socks are a blend. Some of them are obvious like Alanium Value (in conjunction with the technical data), but some of them are not. I'm more concerned with the not-so-obvious ones than those that would be blocked no matter who they were related to.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

OK I see. So I would say Beals was the common name here. I'll take a second look at the other MO. With schools being quiet for the summer.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Having immediately come across this as one of the accounts I re-blocked, you can understand my caution about names. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

She's back

Hi Zzuuzz,

Our most attractive hoax, fashion model Seriya Gebru has reappeared, courtesy of a new account. Any assistance you can provide re: deleting and salting this in its various forms, and checking for sockpuppets, will be greatly appreciated. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:B53D:47CE:83E6:3C5F (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)