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)
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 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)
[1] [2] 119.254.84.90 ( talk) 02:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Why have you done this? -- Phil Copperman ( talk) 19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning up that ugly mess. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you Zzuuzz for dealing with sockpuppetry from User:Migosyrn8 et al. You have blocked a few of the master's accounts but after my report on AIV you seem to be right on him. Your blocking is helpful to assist in stopping disruption from him, although I am thinking of raising a request for an IP range block if vandalism from this sockmaster persists. For your invaluable help, you are awarded with the Admin's Barnstar. Optakeover (Talk) 16:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
I am going to raise an SPI for checkuser. Any disagreement on that? Optakeover (Talk) 17:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I was getting tired. (=_=) Double sharp ( talk) 09:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your quick response here. I honestly cannot imagine what is wrong with this person but I do know their contributions are ... not welcome. Thanks again and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 12:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Zzuuzz, sorry but this is not the right way. Regards -- Serols ( talk) 16:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello user:Zzuzz. User 121.219.62.208 whom you have blocked has now returned as 137.147.7.175 in the State of Palestine and settler colonialism articles. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 11:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Fancy protecting the other two pages, as any attempt to correct the same issues there has also run into a revision war.
Also can I interest you in addressing any of the issues on any of the talk pages :)
83.104.51.74 ( talk) 20:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, it looks like we'll be getting this user proper-blocked, which is like a ban. Please ensure at the same time that your own edits and references are squeaky clean. In fact, try adding properly referenced material on top, instead of reverting their changes. Admins like things boiled down to their essentials. -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
What you are you doing? You reverted the Wikipedia:Protection policy? ""If there a permanent vandalism, but full/semi protection will expire soon, administrator can extend their life by editing the talk page" not accurate" I don't know why this not accurate. There are steps to extend the life of full/semi protection? Thank you. Akmaie Ajam ( talk) 15:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton ( talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
You were very timely in following up on my WP:AIV report. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 20:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
A new user has created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VQuakr accusing you of being one of VQuakr's socks. Just thought you should know. Everymorning (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi there I am a teacher who is working a second year with students who have been working on a wiki page. We are learning about digital footprints, appropriate online behaviour, etc. The problem is that we share an ip address with 1200 other students. It appears we have been blocked and that there was a problem with vandalism. The block is set to expire tomorrow but we have 45 students who need to be working on this today (now). Hopefully, you get this soon. I'm hoping that you can lift the ban quickly. We will investigate this further on our end. We had a similar problem last year and flushed out the students. They are no longer a part of this class. We only started this today, so I don't know if it is a current student, but will look into it.
Thank you for your consideration. The block is: 6325465 Our ip address is: 64.114.197.56
Thank you for your consideration TeacherHart ( talk) 19:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply. That was my initial thought but it is a new 'user' name and we had no trouble with it in June. This is the message: {{unblock-auto|2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Deeznutsfuckoff". The reason given for Deeznutsfuckoff's block is: "Vandalism-only account".|3=Zzuuzz|4=6325465}}</nowiki>
TeacherHart ( talk) 21:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both! TeacherHart ( talk) 05:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I see that you protected the talk page. Can you please explain why I cannot add to the discussion? I would like to discuss proposed changes before altering the main page if possible.. Thanks IvritSheli ( talk) 00:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Zzuuzz: , you called the CUfcatp a "single protest" so I'd suggest you read the article before declaring that you have bmk's back no matter what.. Do you still object to adding Bill Mea, Richard Stock, Chris Chamberlin & Saskia Bos points of view to the talk page of the article? They are the 4 highest ranking current administrators, and, objectively, the current section is out of date since it leads with former trustee Epstein. Also, can I check the entirety of the Ferociouslettuce sockpuppet investigations. I am curious how many users were controlled by just this 1 person.. Thanks! 47.18.69.44 ( talk) 21:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandal edit on my talk page. If you've seen any similar activity from other accounts or IPs, feel free to contribute here. Also, you might want to review the SPI discussion archive. -- JustBerry ( talk) 15:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the passing intrusion, but I thought you'd want to know that an anonymous user by the IP of 2A02:1205:34D8:8960:74CD:1FD1:643B:8FFA has been posting vague complaints about false sockpuppetry allegations on other admins' talk pages (e.g. User talk:Orangemike#De-adminship of admin Zzuzz). I only noticed because I happened to be watching one of the talk pages. — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 17:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Ouch! Serious mistake, thank you for catching it. I don't review very often, most of the time I create new articles (mostly about painters!) Maybe I should stick to that. (It would be difficult to get trampled in a stampede when he's in prison) WQUlrich ( talk) 18:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
It's an administrator's job to check the facts before reaching for the block button. A community unban discussion can't be faked - why don't you read it? 86.149.12.63 ( talk) 13:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
If you can restore talk page access on the main account I'll set the wheels in motion. 86.149.12.63 ( talk) 14:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
So,
I conclude that there is no doubt that this user ( User:Vote (X) for Change) is banned. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Zzuuzz, thanks for deleting The Cross Star Media. I've put a request in for it to be salted, is it possible you could do that? It's been created now by two usernames, and more recently IP users had begun to appear to remove CSD tags. I think a temporary protection would put them off? Thanks. samtar ( msg) 12:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Any idea who it was? Doug Weller ( talk) 08:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day!
![]() |
LOL. You beat me to it, and the immediate blocking! -- Efe ( talk) 18:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Andre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Now Magazine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Renew PC? -- George Ho ( talk) 00:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if maybe it's time for WMF to handle the individual behind those socks. GoodDay ( talk) 10:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Could you look at this? Thanks. --Peace world 19:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for dealing with the abusive vandalism on my page. I really appreciate it. If you don't mind me asking, what would this have been related to? I imagine I've angered a lot of vandals in my time here. GAB Hello! 16:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking 109.67.134.193. If you feel it's appropriate, please revert his addition of poorly sourced information at Schnitzel, as I have already made three reverts. I can revert all of his other vandalism. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 20:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I think Bonadea's sudden blanking of her user page and talk page, and the edit summaries, has something to do with this guy who blanked his own talk page ( this is what it looked like before that) a few minutes before Bonadea blanked hers, only seconds after Bonadea had added these tags on a totally promotional article that user had created, one a long line of such articles created by them, many if not most of which have been deleted, some after being nominated by Bonadea. They also clashed on this AfD earlier today. My guess is that he's engaging in paid promotion here, considering that all articles created are purely promotional and cover a very wide range of subjects.
Which is why I asked on ANI if it's possible to see if someone has sent her an email, by which I meant that someone with access to such information should look at it, because I've never seen Bonadea do something like this before. Thomas.W talk 19:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Zzuuzz. Apologies to ask you as I bumped into your through your admin actions. Are you active now? I am requesting upprotection of my user talk page as I am back on vandalism patrol and I need my talk page to be open for communication. I have contacted the protecting admin but no reply or action so far. Optakeover (Talk) 18:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, You protected this article on 7 May 2011, and has never reverted back. Neither article on The Libertines or Babyshambles are protected nor suffer from vandalism, so maybe time to unprotect?
Cheers
78.144.108.175 ( talk) 15:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for the swift action - here's something to make sure you are awake :P Mdann52 ( talk) 16:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC) |
Thanks for your intervention here, but things have started to become a bit scary now. The same user is back as 151.20.0.70 ( talk · contribs) and 151.20.2.6 ( talk · contribs). Apart from his disruptive style of editing ( useless change of the order of a town's German and Italian name, exchanging German town names with Italian ones, anachronistic usage of an Italian town name... all together a simply annoying prolongation of a traditionally annoying naming controversy that has its roots in Wikipedia's prehistory, therefore WP:NOTBROKEN should be applied), he also started to insult me ( "salcrautone", i.e. "sauerkraut") and eventually threaten me with lifelong stalking activities ( "uno stolching perenne, a tempo indeterminato, da parte mia su di te.", that means "an eternal stalking, for an indefinite period of time, from me at the expense of you"). Hence my question: Is it possible to adopt a semi-protection for both my talk page and the "honeypot" articles Silvius Magnago and History of South Tyrol? Greets, -- Mai-Sachme ( talk) 18:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Bolgitalianissimano ( talk · contribs) Sock puppet of the IPs, created in order to bypass the semi-protection. No other interests than disruptive editing, i.e. fighting silly naming battles. -- Mai-Sachme ( talk) 10:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Zzuuzz:I apologise for him in his place, he's just raged because he lost his personal battle for Germanity in Italy, please forgive him. Back to business, I was the IP user 46.252.205.187, not 5.101.99.101. User Bolgitalianissimano, whom I know, is the IP user 5.101.99.101 instead. It was him who used to edit articles about South Tyrol, not me. Lately I've edited only those 2 articles and the related talk pages. Always according to consensus, unlike Mai-Sachme. And according to consensus is Bolgitalianissimano acting too. Please control his edits are neither diruptive nor against consensus. If instead they are, please reply and explain why. I'll tell him too to come here and reply.
Zzuuzz: I know there is a tool called check users used to see a registered user's IP logs. I am not the user of the 151-IP and administrators can do a check to demonstrate it. Bolgitalianissimano ( talk) 17:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
You forgot to mention WP:AGF. Watch my last edits, started before you wrote your comment, such as [11] [12]. It is not disruptive editing. Actually also correcting wrong names is not disruptive editing. I have found nothing about it in WP:DE. Bolgitalianissimano ( talk) 18:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Instead I am sincere, so I will not tell you that I admire the way you are trying to turn a talk into a contest (you'd lose, you'd lose, you'd lose, you'll lose) and to provoke. Bolgitalianissimano ( talk) 19:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed that German guy is not. Bolgitalianissimano ( talk) 20:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Zzuuzz, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.
Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!
https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H
Hi there Zzuzz. I reverted some bad edits on the article prison consultant recently, and monitoring that article I noticed you reverting more bad edits there today - thank you for that. In addition to the issues of BLP violations and promotional content, it's now clear that there are undisclosed paid SPAs adding copyright violations to the page. The topic itself is also of unclear notability - Madoff's use of a consultant is the only part covered in any depth in good sources, and it could be covered as easily in Madoff's article. I've come to the conclusion that the article should therefore be deleted, but of course a humble IP editor cannot complete an AFD. Is there any chance you could assist me with doing so? 209.211.131.181 ( talk) 22:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, the boxed content below is my nomination statement. If you'll copy that into a nomination whenever you have a chance, I will take ownership of my comments once I see the AfD posted. That way, you can offer your own opinion as you like. Again, thank you for your assistance. 209.211.131.181 ( talk) 22:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
This form of consulting definitely exists; however, it's of unclear notability, since most of the real coverage is related to one person, Bernard Madoff, hiring a prison consultant - a fact which can be covered adequately in Madoff's article. The other sources in the article, from reliable sources, are slim "subject exists" articles at best.
While the preceding might not be a reason for deletion on its own, this article has a history of much larger problems. I have removed a lengthy "Practitioners" section from the article, but the article history is fully visible, and I advise anyone considering keeping this article to review it. The section contained, variously, a policy-violating directory of named consultants, promotional content, copyright violations, and violations of the Biographies of Living Persons policy - to wit, claims about consultants' prison experience without acceptable sourcing. Often it was all of that in the same content. This content has been repeatedly removed or redacted over a span of years, and repeatedly readded by a stream of single-purpose accounts who are probably undertaking undisclosed editing. The content of that currently-removed section is unacceptable, but history shows that it will be readded yet again in the future, festering until someone else removes it yet again and the cycle continues.
The best option is to get rid of the article that attracts this bad editing. Material about Madoff can be merged to the Madoff article, and any other content able to be rescued could be added to Incarceration in the United States if that is desirable. The article itself should be deleted.
210.195.80.199 ( talk) 01:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry for linking to the personal information on the user talk page. That was just bad judgement on my part. GAB Hello! 21:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
[1] [2] 119.254.84.90 ( talk) 02:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Why have you done this? -- Phil Copperman ( talk) 19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning up that ugly mess. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you Zzuuzz for dealing with sockpuppetry from User:Migosyrn8 et al. You have blocked a few of the master's accounts but after my report on AIV you seem to be right on him. Your blocking is helpful to assist in stopping disruption from him, although I am thinking of raising a request for an IP range block if vandalism from this sockmaster persists. For your invaluable help, you are awarded with the Admin's Barnstar. Optakeover (Talk) 16:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
I am going to raise an SPI for checkuser. Any disagreement on that? Optakeover (Talk) 17:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I was getting tired. (=_=) Double sharp ( talk) 09:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your quick response here. I honestly cannot imagine what is wrong with this person but I do know their contributions are ... not welcome. Thanks again and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 12:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Zzuuzz, sorry but this is not the right way. Regards -- Serols ( talk) 16:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello user:Zzuzz. User 121.219.62.208 whom you have blocked has now returned as 137.147.7.175 in the State of Palestine and settler colonialism articles. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 11:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Fancy protecting the other two pages, as any attempt to correct the same issues there has also run into a revision war.
Also can I interest you in addressing any of the issues on any of the talk pages :)
83.104.51.74 ( talk) 20:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, it looks like we'll be getting this user proper-blocked, which is like a ban. Please ensure at the same time that your own edits and references are squeaky clean. In fact, try adding properly referenced material on top, instead of reverting their changes. Admins like things boiled down to their essentials. -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
What you are you doing? You reverted the Wikipedia:Protection policy? ""If there a permanent vandalism, but full/semi protection will expire soon, administrator can extend their life by editing the talk page" not accurate" I don't know why this not accurate. There are steps to extend the life of full/semi protection? Thank you. Akmaie Ajam ( talk) 15:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton ( talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
You were very timely in following up on my WP:AIV report. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 20:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
A new user has created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VQuakr accusing you of being one of VQuakr's socks. Just thought you should know. Everymorning (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi there I am a teacher who is working a second year with students who have been working on a wiki page. We are learning about digital footprints, appropriate online behaviour, etc. The problem is that we share an ip address with 1200 other students. It appears we have been blocked and that there was a problem with vandalism. The block is set to expire tomorrow but we have 45 students who need to be working on this today (now). Hopefully, you get this soon. I'm hoping that you can lift the ban quickly. We will investigate this further on our end. We had a similar problem last year and flushed out the students. They are no longer a part of this class. We only started this today, so I don't know if it is a current student, but will look into it.
Thank you for your consideration. The block is: 6325465 Our ip address is: 64.114.197.56
Thank you for your consideration TeacherHart ( talk) 19:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply. That was my initial thought but it is a new 'user' name and we had no trouble with it in June. This is the message: {{unblock-auto|2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Deeznutsfuckoff". The reason given for Deeznutsfuckoff's block is: "Vandalism-only account".|3=Zzuuzz|4=6325465}}</nowiki>
TeacherHart ( talk) 21:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both! TeacherHart ( talk) 05:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I see that you protected the talk page. Can you please explain why I cannot add to the discussion? I would like to discuss proposed changes before altering the main page if possible.. Thanks IvritSheli ( talk) 00:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Zzuuzz: , you called the CUfcatp a "single protest" so I'd suggest you read the article before declaring that you have bmk's back no matter what.. Do you still object to adding Bill Mea, Richard Stock, Chris Chamberlin & Saskia Bos points of view to the talk page of the article? They are the 4 highest ranking current administrators, and, objectively, the current section is out of date since it leads with former trustee Epstein. Also, can I check the entirety of the Ferociouslettuce sockpuppet investigations. I am curious how many users were controlled by just this 1 person.. Thanks! 47.18.69.44 ( talk) 21:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandal edit on my talk page. If you've seen any similar activity from other accounts or IPs, feel free to contribute here. Also, you might want to review the SPI discussion archive. -- JustBerry ( talk) 15:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the passing intrusion, but I thought you'd want to know that an anonymous user by the IP of 2A02:1205:34D8:8960:74CD:1FD1:643B:8FFA has been posting vague complaints about false sockpuppetry allegations on other admins' talk pages (e.g. User talk:Orangemike#De-adminship of admin Zzuzz). I only noticed because I happened to be watching one of the talk pages. — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 17:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Ouch! Serious mistake, thank you for catching it. I don't review very often, most of the time I create new articles (mostly about painters!) Maybe I should stick to that. (It would be difficult to get trampled in a stampede when he's in prison) WQUlrich ( talk) 18:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
It's an administrator's job to check the facts before reaching for the block button. A community unban discussion can't be faked - why don't you read it? 86.149.12.63 ( talk) 13:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
If you can restore talk page access on the main account I'll set the wheels in motion. 86.149.12.63 ( talk) 14:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
So,
I conclude that there is no doubt that this user ( User:Vote (X) for Change) is banned. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Zzuuzz, thanks for deleting The Cross Star Media. I've put a request in for it to be salted, is it possible you could do that? It's been created now by two usernames, and more recently IP users had begun to appear to remove CSD tags. I think a temporary protection would put them off? Thanks. samtar ( msg) 12:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Any idea who it was? Doug Weller ( talk) 08:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day!
![]() |
LOL. You beat me to it, and the immediate blocking! -- Efe ( talk) 18:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Andre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Now Magazine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Renew PC? -- George Ho ( talk) 00:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if maybe it's time for WMF to handle the individual behind those socks. GoodDay ( talk) 10:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Could you look at this? Thanks. --Peace world 19:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for dealing with the abusive vandalism on my page. I really appreciate it. If you don't mind me asking, what would this have been related to? I imagine I've angered a lot of vandals in my time here. GAB Hello! 16:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking 109.67.134.193. If you feel it's appropriate, please revert his addition of poorly sourced information at Schnitzel, as I have already made three reverts. I can revert all of his other vandalism. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 20:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I think Bonadea's sudden blanking of her user page and talk page, and the edit summaries, has something to do with this guy who blanked his own talk page ( this is what it looked like before that) a few minutes before Bonadea blanked hers, only seconds after Bonadea had added these tags on a totally promotional article that user had created, one a long line of such articles created by them, many if not most of which have been deleted, some after being nominated by Bonadea. They also clashed on this AfD earlier today. My guess is that he's engaging in paid promotion here, considering that all articles created are purely promotional and cover a very wide range of subjects.
Which is why I asked on ANI if it's possible to see if someone has sent her an email, by which I meant that someone with access to such information should look at it, because I've never seen Bonadea do something like this before. Thomas.W talk 19:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Zzuuzz. Apologies to ask you as I bumped into your through your admin actions. Are you active now? I am requesting upprotection of my user talk page as I am back on vandalism patrol and I need my talk page to be open for communication. I have contacted the protecting admin but no reply or action so far. Optakeover (Talk) 18:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, You protected this article on 7 May 2011, and has never reverted back. Neither article on The Libertines or Babyshambles are protected nor suffer from vandalism, so maybe time to unprotect?
Cheers
78.144.108.175 ( talk) 15:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for the swift action - here's something to make sure you are awake :P Mdann52 ( talk) 16:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC) |
Thanks for your intervention here, but things have started to become a bit scary now. The same user is back as 151.20.0.70 ( talk · contribs) and 151.20.2.6 ( talk · contribs). Apart from his disruptive style of editing ( useless change of the order of a town's German and Italian name, exchanging German town names with Italian ones, anachronistic usage of an Italian town name... all together a simply annoying prolongation of a traditionally annoying naming controversy that has its roots in Wikipedia's prehistory, therefore WP:NOTBROKEN should be applied), he also started to insult me ( "salcrautone", i.e. "sauerkraut") and eventually threaten me with lifelong stalking activities ( "uno stolching perenne, a tempo indeterminato, da parte mia su di te.", that means "an eternal stalking, for an indefinite period of time, from me at the expense of you"). Hence my question: Is it possible to adopt a semi-protection for both my talk page and the "honeypot" articles Silvius Magnago and History of South Tyrol? Greets, -- Mai-Sachme ( talk) 18:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Bolgitalianissimano ( talk · contribs) Sock puppet of the IPs, created in order to bypass the semi-protection. No other interests than disruptive editing, i.e. fighting silly naming battles. -- Mai-Sachme ( talk) 10:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Zzuuzz:I apologise for him in his place, he's just raged because he lost his personal battle for Germanity in Italy, please forgive him. Back to business, I was the IP user 46.252.205.187, not 5.101.99.101. User Bolgitalianissimano, whom I know, is the IP user 5.101.99.101 instead. It was him who used to edit articles about South Tyrol, not me. Lately I've edited only those 2 articles and the related talk pages. Always according to consensus, unlike Mai-Sachme. And according to consensus is Bolgitalianissimano acting too. Please control his edits are neither diruptive nor against consensus. If instead they are, please reply and explain why. I'll tell him too to come here and reply.
Zzuuzz: I know there is a tool called check users used to see a registered user's IP logs. I am not the user of the 151-IP and administrators can do a check to demonstrate it. Bolgitalianissimano ( talk) 17:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
You forgot to mention WP:AGF. Watch my last edits, started before you wrote your comment, such as [11] [12]. It is not disruptive editing. Actually also correcting wrong names is not disruptive editing. I have found nothing about it in WP:DE. Bolgitalianissimano ( talk) 18:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Instead I am sincere, so I will not tell you that I admire the way you are trying to turn a talk into a contest (you'd lose, you'd lose, you'd lose, you'll lose) and to provoke. Bolgitalianissimano ( talk) 19:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed that German guy is not. Bolgitalianissimano ( talk) 20:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Zzuuzz, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.
Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!
https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H
Hi there Zzuzz. I reverted some bad edits on the article prison consultant recently, and monitoring that article I noticed you reverting more bad edits there today - thank you for that. In addition to the issues of BLP violations and promotional content, it's now clear that there are undisclosed paid SPAs adding copyright violations to the page. The topic itself is also of unclear notability - Madoff's use of a consultant is the only part covered in any depth in good sources, and it could be covered as easily in Madoff's article. I've come to the conclusion that the article should therefore be deleted, but of course a humble IP editor cannot complete an AFD. Is there any chance you could assist me with doing so? 209.211.131.181 ( talk) 22:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, the boxed content below is my nomination statement. If you'll copy that into a nomination whenever you have a chance, I will take ownership of my comments once I see the AfD posted. That way, you can offer your own opinion as you like. Again, thank you for your assistance. 209.211.131.181 ( talk) 22:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
This form of consulting definitely exists; however, it's of unclear notability, since most of the real coverage is related to one person, Bernard Madoff, hiring a prison consultant - a fact which can be covered adequately in Madoff's article. The other sources in the article, from reliable sources, are slim "subject exists" articles at best.
While the preceding might not be a reason for deletion on its own, this article has a history of much larger problems. I have removed a lengthy "Practitioners" section from the article, but the article history is fully visible, and I advise anyone considering keeping this article to review it. The section contained, variously, a policy-violating directory of named consultants, promotional content, copyright violations, and violations of the Biographies of Living Persons policy - to wit, claims about consultants' prison experience without acceptable sourcing. Often it was all of that in the same content. This content has been repeatedly removed or redacted over a span of years, and repeatedly readded by a stream of single-purpose accounts who are probably undertaking undisclosed editing. The content of that currently-removed section is unacceptable, but history shows that it will be readded yet again in the future, festering until someone else removes it yet again and the cycle continues.
The best option is to get rid of the article that attracts this bad editing. Material about Madoff can be merged to the Madoff article, and any other content able to be rescued could be added to Incarceration in the United States if that is desirable. The article itself should be deleted.
210.195.80.199 ( talk) 01:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry for linking to the personal information on the user talk page. That was just bad judgement on my part. GAB Hello! 21:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)