User talk:zzuuzz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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

Londonderry???[edit]

It's Derry! Nod3million (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nod3million: See WP:DERRY. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

The username Help me please i wanna die might be another sock puppet account by an LTA. Report abuse by acdmins here was created immediately after this one, and it matches a huge pile of others that have been LTA blocked as well (even the spelling of "acdmins" in the username matches - it's an attempt to try and throw off any "flags" from being set). Just wanted to leave you a message and give you a heads up in case the user starts abusing talk page access. I'll keep an eye on it ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah_can_only_say_Sockpuppetry_the_autistic_cjunt - Called it ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Oshwah, it did more than cross my mind. I applied WP:ROPE, as it were; it remains unproven. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It's all good - I apply it many times as well; there's absolutely no harm in giving the benefit of the doubt to another and doing so. Rock on ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Blendan Hall[edit]

Hi zzuuzz, I wish you hadn't fixed something that wasn't broken. You made general something that was specific. I realize that currently there is only one Blendan Hall, the ship, but I have run across many cases where I have had to go back and make the general specific. Acad Ronin (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to move it back. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Isn't that a bit like taking your dog for a walk, having it deposit on the sidewalk, and when someone points that out, replying, "You are welcome to clean it up." Acad Ronin (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Not really, as there's absolutely nothing wrong with the current title. If you want to move it back, I won't be bothered about it (for example I will neither complain nor revert your changes). -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's just ignore what Chris posts at UAA[edit]

The instructions on the Twinkle tab when issuing the warning say that the warning about group accounts "should not be used for blatant username policy violations. Blatant violations should be reported directly to UAA" which is what I did. I can't speak to seriousness but the violations are blatant (and apparently a problem with some class activity) so I think your response is a bit much. Since you are happy to discuss, please do. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Chris. I hope you don't think I ignored what you wrote. I declined the reports. I've long had a problem with some of Twinkle's wording, so let's delve straight into policy and dealing with inappropriate usernames. Actually only one of the four usernames that I removed from UAA was an inappropriate username, but I think the same principles apply. Policy mentions AGF and biting in the first two paragraphs (this is of course not the only place these are mentioned). The third paragraph is titled "Talk to the user". The fourth paragraph doesn't apply at this time but the fifth, six and seventh appear to have been overlooked. I'd personally be suprised to see these accounts edit again - when they make a handful of edits over one hour a month ago these accounts are not considered recent or active. Apart from a lack of discussion with the user/users, there is an additional factor, and that is a lack of discussion with the person who created the accounts. This is not a summary I could fit into the edit summary box, nor felt inclined to preemptively add to your talk page. Having refreshed yourself of the policy, do you still think these accounts should be blocked immediately without warning? -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about bad edit on Village Pump[edit]

Oops. During an edit, Firefox crashed, recovered, and returned me to the edit window with text intact, but recovery somehow turned a single-item edit into a much larger edit. John Nagle (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I would've restored your addition but couldn't be sure what it was. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Those rangeblocks you made today[edit]

In case you didn't know already, this "Spearton", "BLOBBLIBBBLOBBLIB" mass blanking regarding your rangeblocks today appears to be Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/My Royal Young. I've been seeing this for a while, and seems to be increasing in frequency; I've just reported seven IPs making in the region of four edits each in the space of five minutes. Is there anything abuse filter wise that we can do about it? —72 talk 00:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I never figured out whether to delete that LTA page or add to it. 110.54.128.0/17 and 112.198.64.0/18 - yes, I think something like that can be done. I'm going to ping Oshwah who's placed the current range blocks, and MusikAnimal who is both a checkuser and knows about filter 859, in case they feel like doing anything. I suspect, but don't know, that more than these ranges have been used. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The rangeblocks I made today were due to the mass blanking of articles related to military boats, warships, and submarines - and replacing them with the word "Spearton"' (one example out of the many). The solution to this issue, given the extreme rate of disruption from these two ranges in such short time, was to block both ranges. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, "Spearton" is what I've been seeing for a while (~ a month, maybe more) and I haven't been able to identify who it is until I found that LTA page (example of such a circumstance, Widr seems to have come across this before too). Since it's all so similar I was wondering, given how long this is continuing, whether this pattern of "Spearton" blanking could be solved by an edit filter. —72 talk 10:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Oshwah: I think what zzuuzz was getting at was more whether you thought a filter change was neccessary (considering what I wrote about this being a quickly recurring theme) rather than your rationale for the range block yesterday specifically. Please correct me if I'm wrong —72 talk 13:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
If he was, then I apologize. Also, I'd say that if the same exact disruption continues after the range blocks expire, an edit filter manager would certainly put a stop to it, sure. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Which is why I asked MA for any comments - in terms of the repeated blocks on one of the ranges, the collateral and any related ranges, and filter 859 (maybe Oshwah knows something about that?). The short answer is that something has been briefly tried, but I'd be willing to make another attempt (after gathering a bit more info). -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I've not just seen IPs, but accounts too – [1]. There are also examples of IPs which don't fit into the ranges blocked yesterday. It's not easy to get examples of this but the following were only just that morning yesterday [2] [3] [4]. 110.54.144.0/20 has also been globally blocked, I understand that some of this is spilling over into other project(s). —72 talk 13:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
So some changes have been made to the aforementioned filter. Both ranges are currently blocked and there's been no edits. If the edits continue with accounts after the /17 block expires then we might poke a checkuser/steward for another range block. In any case drop me a line if you see any more of it and I don't. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, and will do if necessary —72 talk 19:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Sock[edit]

Codename Alex is a sock of Brain-made-out-of-Hayman30, Widr 2, 3, 4, 5. Same message, same coin image (which I've deleted), etc. I've blocked the socks on Commons. Looks to be using open proxies. Daphne Lantier 08:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take care of them. There seems to be quite a sockpuppeting farm going on there. @Widr: -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I am the person who made some of those accounts though I did ask my friends to help too. I know that it sound odd but the reason why I did it was because Hayman30 never apologized and the deservestodie part referred to the anti mobile mentality of users as him not to the editor himself but if you all really perceive this as a problem then I will stop creating accounts and only edit as an IP but all I really want is an apology for the WP:BADFAITH reverts by this user. I will stop making accounts anyhow the reason I made more was because the ones with Widr in the name got blocked before I could even ask a question and the reason my IP is never the same is because I travel a lot for my work and edit occasionally while on a break. At least I hope that this can be resolved in a civil manner and the reason I got more aggressive was because my image got deleted based on a false copyright claim by @Daphne Pontier: or whatever despite literally my accounts asking why I constantly got blocked. For the record I am not Codename Alex that is the husband of a friend I am the rest. If only one person told me why I got blocked with Widr 2 which I only named as that as a reminder why I even made an account I would have never made more. Is an apology for a nonsense revert really too much to ask for? I never vandalized a single article. 2405:4800:1484:915E:BC16:D63F:761E:5FE8 (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Grow up and stop acting like a child throwing a tantrum. Only pathetic losers use sockpuppetry and disruption as you are. Move on with your life and do something worthwhile with your time. Daphne Lantier 19:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Zzuuzz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Your comment at WT:RFPP[edit]

Hello Zzuuzz! Regarding Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#Gulf War, can you say more about your opinion on ARBPIA? Do you think the sanctions were not well designed? I agree with your view on living with the inconsistency. The committee authorized a lot of potential restrictions and protections but didn't require them across the board. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It's obviously just messy. Users can expect 30/500 protection for any article fitting ARBPIA, when it hasn't suffered disruption or been edited for years. There is a so-called General Prohibition (evidenced in that edit notice we were talking about) against new editors editing such articles, which is sometimes enforced by users without protection (and sometimes not). A number of admins are obviously uncomfortable with preemptive protection (myself included), so it falls to a small number of admins to fulfill such protection requests at RFPP, where they'll often sit around for a while. My opinion, if I'm asked for it, is that ARBCOM has attempted policy by fiat, inconsistent with the protection policy, and that the result is just messy. If I was ARBCOM, I would remove the prohibition and talk about necessity. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You beat me to it ;-)[edit]

Thanks for extending that block to the 2001:8003:5354:7000::/64 range - it was obviously needed ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Any time :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you block talk page[edit]

User User:2001:8003:5354:7000:E133:C454:3892:1D06 is a sock puppet of User:2001:8003:5354:7000:B46B:C9E8:488:6AA7. Just here to disrupt things and will use there talk page to insult people NZ Footballs Conscience(talk)

Done already :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Consumers Distributing[edit]

Hello Zzuuzz, you should unlock Consumers Distributing page, because the setting of unlock is too long and if we have something new to edit we can't do anything for six months.It should be locked for one week normally. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winnap (talkcontribs) 16:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like you to take a really good look at these pages: WP:SOCK, WP:COI, WP:PCD, WP:APB. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Veteran Geezer[edit]

I just blocked this account for engaging in sock puppetry. If you view the block log and see the last edit made by the other account I linked, it'll become obvious ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah. I am not so sure (I keep saying that don't I?). You know what these memes are like. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Socks[edit]

Hi Zzuuzz, can you give me some background on this account that you blocked? I just found another drawer full of accounts. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi DoRD. My knowledge can be fully explored here, here, and here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I still don't know who it is, but that helps. As far as their explanation that some of the accounts belong to friends goes, that's doubtful since they're all using the same device. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I think that global locks may be necessary because he is up to shenanigans elsewhere. Today, under this account and also using this one recently. Also, this & this.
He !voted keep in a Commons deletion request yesterday involving a different SPI case and his userpage at simple wiki, "lone man avenging those of the fallen no contribution shall remain deleted for the ivory warrior watches over" explains how he intends to !vote going forward.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Other IPs to be reviewed include

(these IPs are him, may help DoRD to find other accounts)

He is also recently active at nl.wiki with his account and this IP.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

eww. I expect User:Daphne Lantier might also want to take a glance at these lists. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Berean Hunter: These are all confirmed to be him as well. If you don't mind, let's get this off zz's talk and put it in an SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks guys. I already dealt with this guy a bit at Commons earlier today, as he was bothering a fellow admin there. She's sick, so I had to get rid of his nonsense for her. Face-smile.svg Daphne Lantier 21:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocking a single disruptive IP[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure where to go with this, because I've literally never needed to request an anon IP block, but I think this one fits the bill. 24.178.250.78 (talk) has been disrupting the Jared Taylor page with unsourced POV original research, and disrupting the Talk:Jared Taylor with soapbox forum-like diatribes. There's also been other editing which is indicative of someone that is not here to build an encyclopedia, such as this edit where he calls an editor "a doofus who was talking out his rear end" and his removal of sourced material and the corresponding references, here and here. The last two may be WP:BATTLEGROUND reversions because I was one of the editors that weighed in on the Taylor talk page about his edits, and I also was one of the editors that posted on the IP's talk page about his behavior (no response to any of those either). If this is the wrong place to ask about this, could you kindly point me in the right direction? Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, there were threats of legal action over libel made by this IP editor, on the Talk:Jared Taylor. Other editors, including Edaham (talk), addressed that problem with him multiple times, apparently to no avail. Rockypedia (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You are fortunate to have picked an admin who has zero familiarity with the subject. Personally, from a brief review of the Taylor page, I think the IP is appropriately (mostly) addressing a clear problem in the lede of the article. And I'm not seeing anything blockable. This is an appropriate place to ask about it, and that's my response. However if you still think action is appropriate, you could ask User:Doug Weller (who is probably observing it anyway), or at the end of the day WP:ANI would be the appropriate forum to request a block, if there's sufficient evidence of a problem. You, or the IP, might also find some constructive help at WP:BLPN. I'll continue to have a look at the situation, but I'm not able to commit a great deal of time to it at the moment (and I'm sorry but American football is usually like a completely foreign and unintelligible language to me). -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I was mentioned here so I'll chime in. Doug is almost certainly watching the user. I don't think the user is editing and contributing in bad faith although his or her grasp of policy is a bit lacking. I do believe that although the editor is here to right great wrongs, if he or she can be encouraged to dig for sources and sign those damn posts then the quality of contributions could improve. Although there were some comments from this editor I found to be threatening, I think any more warnings regarding legal would be wp:beans. The editor is not threatening to carry out action, just implying that other editors are acting in a potentially libelous manner. I've issued a warning about this. Hopefully after the debate simmers down we'll get an editor out of it. Other results seem less attractive. Maintain civil and stay cheerful and helpful is my advice on this one. Edaham (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I've been watching the user and taking part in the discussion. I warned the IP about personal attacks and I think they've stopped. I'm too involved (they called me a liar in fact), so if it gets worse again ANI would be appropriate. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Wholesale reverts[edit]

Hi - I'm currently having all my edits reverted by User:A Great Catholic Person - would you be able to put a stop to this for me, and is there a way to revert all their edits once they are blocked? Thanks, Garchy (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks to how awesome Wikipedia is this all got handled much quicker than I thought it would be :) Looks like it's all set! Garchy (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:86.67.105.194 ‎[edit]

Hi Zzuuzz. You blocked IP 86.67.105.194 ‎two weeks for vandalism. I think he/she might be back as IP 37.160.126.206 and IP 37.169.23.191. Someone editing from those IP has been adding/re-adding non-free images to User talk:86.67.105.194 despite being advised not to do so. I'm not sure whether it is better to ask for the IP to blocked or to ask that user talk page be protected, Would you mind taking a look? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC) ‎

Thanks, you can find some background here. It's the same user but unfortunately they also have access to a huge range (37.160.* - 37.175.*) so while they can be blocked on sight, the blocks are not going to be effective. Protection it is then.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Understand. I started an AN3 for the IP 37's, but since you've protected the page maybe that will slow them down a bit. Thanks for the assistance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Most likely the same editor is now adding the same content to User talk:86.67.105.1945 and edit warring at User talk:KlausSmithHeissler. maybe protection will work on those pages as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I've sorted those pages. I'm sure they'll return somewhere so I've temporarily blacklisted that image as an additional anti-annoyance. -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Justin Knapp vandal[edit]

That account you blocked earlier is a sock of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cow cleaner 5000 FYI. I had to restrict TPA due to his trolling on his talk page. Normally for their socks I block without tagging are withdraw TPA for that reason. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock request[edit]

This is the range that keeps inserting porn into pages and it should probably be blocked. —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 00:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Context refers to the surroundings, circumstances, environment, background or settings that determine, specify, or clarify the meaning of an event or other occurrence {wiktionary). I'll take a look, but I'd imagine the range is a larger one. Any immediate hurry? -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I have not seen any disruption like that from outside the range. No need to rush. —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 01:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

T-Mobile is notorious for knocking around several ranges at the same time, including 172.56.* and some others, but they can often be narrowed down to some extent. They are used by several banned users. 172.58.137.0/24 is also involved here ... Still looking... -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended content
Other ranges

@MRD2014 and Oshwah: I've taken out 172.58.136.0/23 for a week. Should there be any more of that from T-Mobile, rinse, repeat, extend as required. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Face-smile.svgMRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 18:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good, zzuuzz. I'll keep my eyes open :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
The today's featured article porn vandal is back, this time under 172.56.13.0/24 (range contributions ·block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 17:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Test accounts[edit]

Blockmeaccount (talk · contribs) This account is for testing purposes. thank you. - 175.158.217.32 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

User:My Royal Young, amiright? -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
yes, but there are also this user: Cyrus noto3at bulaga (talk · contribs) is a possible sock puppet or long-term abuse of User:My Royal Young, please review at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/My Royal Young. - 175.158.216.150 (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • zzuuzz, this is my account, I am a font designer and I am not vandalize the page. This IP address has bias to block me without review, zzuuzz that is wrong report to me, I revert the edit of the sockpuppet My Royal Young due to vandalism. --cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! (Talk | Contributions) 11:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't worry about it Cyrus noto3at bulaga. The report is without merit, and looks to have been made by the vandal herself. If you're interested, it's this user. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • zzuuzz, his/her contribution has in Tagalog Wikipedia and you cannot understand Filipino language. I am most active user at Tagalog Wikipedia. Principe Ybarro has created his/her account on March 30, 2017, I am seen the contribution of sockpuppet of My Royal Young, I am reverted. --cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! (Talk | Contributions) 11:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Another block needed[edit]

Re your recent revert at WP:AN, please see Special:Contributions/80.44.88.67. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with that. There appears little reason why a non-autoconfirmed user would need to mention that banned user, so perhaps an edit filter would be warranted to break the cycle of fun? Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Hi there. Do you have time pls to check this IP editor who keeps removing sourced material from a BLP article and who keeps adding unsourced material] into the same article? (report at Ani here) Thank you. 89.15.28.118 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I am taking a look, but need to read up a little as the topic is unfamiliar. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
k. It appears as if the IP editor wants to hide what the BBC source says, namely that the subject of the BLP article actually did "urge Biafrans to take up arms against the Nigerian State". 89.15.28.118 (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I take your point. What I'm really looking for is confirmation that the statement is correct. We apparently have a link to the speech in a former version - no mention of bullets. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
You can watch the original video here, the topic starts at the 16:42 timer: 17:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Not saying you're wrong but I've thrown down some semi-protection for the time being. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. My whole issue is to keep the article balanced. This Kanu guy did call for arms in public in 2015, reputable sources like BBC reported on it, and so it should be mentioned in the article alongside the interview he gave in 2017 where he explained himself. 89.15.28.118 (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
In the speech he actually mentions "guns and bullets" twice. Here's the first time he mentioned it. 89.15.28.118 (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, they are problematic edits and hopefully 115.87.15* will get the message anyway. It's going to take some time for me to understand what the guy was actually calling for - in relation to what - and I tend to work slowly sometimes. As much as I trust the BBC it is only a single source and a little unspecific for such a big claim. The IP seems to be an occasional user (although curiously prompt to the scene) - as it's probably going to change again it's likely that semi-protection might be more useful than blocks in the future, so make the most of any editing time available. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yeah, true, it is only a single source and it is rather an exceptional claim. Still, there are additional sources which report on the call for arms (e.g 1, 2, 3), however only BBC seems to make the assertion that the guy "urged Biafrans to take up arms against the Nigerian state". Maybe that section in the article should be re-written to make it clear that only the BBC made that assertion. As for me, I dont think I'm ready for yet another round of adding well-sourced material into an artile, only to have it removed & replaced by unsourced material with the end result of an admin tagging along to block me for trying to follow Wikipedia's content guideline of Verifiability :). Reverting unsourced material that is placed into an article does not fall under the 3-revert rule (Point #7 WP:3RRNO). Just my 2 cents. 19:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Aye. These things are temporary. Perhaps I didn't entirely help, but I was a bit busy at the time. Thanks for your edits anyway, which are an improvement. I've watchlisted the article so I might catch anything similar, and I've also started reading up a bit. The user clearly has a point of view on the subject. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible Sock Puppetry[edit]

Hi there,

I am suspecting that the two IP addresses, 175.158.216.198 and 175.158.218.17 have both been used by a blocked user named Killer Wiki Busters who keep on replacing content on pages beginning with 'USS' with the same word. This leads me to concern that the person who did this have evaded your and Materialscientist's blocks.

Here's some proof: here, here and here. 86.155.225.3 (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, yes it's the same person (this person). If you see any more feel free to report straight to WP:AIV. I'll be putting some other measures in place to help prevent the trolling. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
This is to let you know that I have noticed three more possible sock puppetry accounts, Careless king, Careless flashdrive and Golden Spearton, all of which are blocked but the reasons for them are not for sock puppetry for the person you've listed in August 2017 in reply to 86.155.225.3. I'd say it is a good idea for all those pages beginning with 'USS', at least, to have them semi-protected so that this sockpuppeteer will be unable to edit them. And where is the page to request them?

86.183.222.236 (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I now know where that page is. 86.183.222.236 (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Zzuuzz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TwoTwoHello (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Revdel request[edit]

Not a particularly pressing or important request, but could you delete this and all previous revisions of my userpage? Several years ago I thought it was wise to list my date of birth; I've since realised it wasn't. Best, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Any time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Syrians[edit]

Hey, its so embarrassing for me. He just provoked me but this needs to end. Im sure that the talk pages shouldnt be used like this. Im a partner int this stupidness, I take my share of blame, but please end it as an admin.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

drop down[edit]

I had no idea what I was doing there. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope, me neither :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I was--as you guessed--trying to change a block reason, and all of a sudden that screen pops up; I'd never seen it before, and just dove in. Fun! Drmies (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I just wonder why no one else noticed it. There's a link at the bottom right of the blocking page which says, "Edit block reasons". It's the only explanation. Quite an extraordinary one, but there you go. Have a trout. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

58.237.161.185[edit]

Did you mean to block this IP? I've done so for 48 hours, but wondering if I should have done longer. I haven't checked to see if it's a proxy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I would have blocked it for a month. Widr would have blocked it for a year. Meh. I didn't block it only because I was watching it whilst fiddling with the edit filter at the same time. Take a look at the most recent filter. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah okay. As we know this vandal's modus operandi is with recent changes, he's starting turning up on my watchlist with articles I've been copyediting. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I've dropped you an email with some more thoughts, off-wiki per WP:BEANS Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Richard Newick[edit]

   Thanks for your speedy intervention protecting one of my Richard Newick edits. Sure looks like you have that situation under control. Hope someone has given you a BattleBots decoration!
--Jerzyt 11:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

   Oh it was the article, Richard Cooper Newick.
--Jerzyt 11:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Proxy blocks[edit]

Does it makes sense to go for one year? This is the standard for proxy blocks, from what I was told, though I don't think it's documented anywhere. More importantly, I suspect if/when they're back, we'll be going through the same IPs again MusikAnimal talk 17:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion I don't think there should be a standard for IP blocks, proxy or otherwise, even for particular types of proxy. A year is perfectly reasonable - probably at the upper end, but in my own experience these particular VPN proxies are /unlikely/ to appear again after a month. It seems to be a feature that they're dynamic, and being predominantly Asia-based that's also a feature. Take the host name of 178.199.127.221 (talk · contribs · block log) or 211.1.206.38 (talk · contribs · block log) or 84.251.76.24 (talk · contribs · block log) for example. Does that look like something that'll appear twice? -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
You're probably right, maybe a year is too much. I'm just going by my experience with this particular vandal. Last time (few months ago, I think) they were sifting through the same IPs, as I saw they all were also blocked back in December when this first began. This time around I'm still seeing some crossover [5][6] so my instinct was to go with a longer duration MusikAnimal talk 18:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't exactly say a year is too much. If it's any worth, I've blocked a few of them for two years. If they do reappear, even once, by all means have no guilt about teh long block. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Bombay Hemp Company Private Limited[edit]

Looks like an IP has removed the UPE tag from the page claiming "CNMall41 is not a paid editor." While they are correct, I believe you meant the tag for the article creator so I restored it but you should likely keep an eye out for them to return. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding a few pages you deleted on 1 September 2017.[edit]

Hi, The most recent 7 edits is to inform contributors the user is blocked as a sockpuppet. Please do not delete it as it is to inform people it is a sock of User:118 alex. Thanks, 31.6.38.235 (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

And the way in which this improves the encyclopaedia is [...] ? -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of user you recently blocked[edit]

Hi Zzuuzz, Eagle 66 has just created sock account Gemstone Revival. Sro23 (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Talkpage access[edit]

Hi Zzuuzz, Could you revoke TP access for Comemrcilapser as they're insistent on keeping a deleted image on their userpage[7], Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Zzuuzz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Cocainaenvenenada[edit]

Hello. I noticed you blocked a couple of proxies that had been used by Cocainaenvenenada this morning, but did you look at Special:Contributions/216.218.131.143? It's currently blocked, but only for 31 hours. See also this, in case you haven't done so already. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I am slowly getting there (you may have noticed). It's currently very  Likely, but I'm just looking a bit deeper and thinking about a range block. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Would you mind looking at Special:Contributions/217.64.127.113 and Special:Contributions/103.75.116.120 too? They both posted on my talk page yesterday, in a thread started by Cocainaenvenenada/Ogando, and could be meat, but could also be Ogando himself using proxies. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
All done by GAB. For the record, I agree. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Parsons Green bombing[edit]

I notice you have been editing the page 2017 Parsons Green bombing in particular the section in claim of responsibility, I have hidden this information, as it is currently contentious to include it in the article. Please contribute to the discussion Talk:2017 Parsons Green bombing#Claim of responsibility, before continuing with the main page version of this section, as it is under discussion as to if it should even be included in the article. Sport and politics (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Vanchor protection[edit]

Looks like we both did almost the same thing at the same time. If you want to set it back to your choice of template editor protection instead of admin protection, I don't mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think I will, as it's not that widely used. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

NawlinWiki and revdel[edit]

Hi. You just removed NawlinWiki from the revdel admin category while I had an outstanding revdel request that I'd left with them. It happens that GB fan has taken care of one of the two revisions, but missed the other. Can you take care of it? Largoplazo (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Largoplazo (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: It seems they're both done now? -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Could there have been a glitch? I now see the two successive revisions deleted, and there's still only one log entry showing that being done. But, earlier, when I checked the article's history, the first of the two revisions wasn't struck through and I still had access to the defamatory content. Weird. Largoplazo (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
(tps) That's because I saw the request on NW's talk and suppressed both revisions before I ever saw the request on GB fan's talk. You must have looked at it some time before I pushed the button. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
It's still strange because the log shows that GB fan, not you, suppressed the revision(s). Largoplazo (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Suppression logs are private - only OSers can see them - but GB fan's RevDel will still show up in the log. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
OSers = suppression = WP:Oversight = kinda like ghosts who lurk in the background. Missing logs is their trademark. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. So spooky! 😀 Largoplazo (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

MRY again[edit]

Judging by the edits and filter log of [8], it seems My Royal Young has a new editing style to evade the existing edit filter. They're using multiple IPs again too. Could you perform another range block? –72 (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I blocked the range 121.54.32.0/24 for a week based on an AIV report, not knowing the history here. Please feel free, Zzuuzz, to adjust as you see fit. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's the one thanks. Just off a global block after appearing on it yesterday. You might see some collateral on this range, but it's probably unavoidable. (case history). -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)