Jump to content

User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Anon evasive user keeps vandalising articles once again.

Hello, evasive SP Master using a Generic IP keep using multiple accounts to disruptive edits and errasing content to his POV. Could a Check user be made? Block Log. Mr.User200 (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps making disruptive edits. todayMr.User200 (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page Creation

Hello, Zzuzz. I am in a blocked IP Address, so I am (Currently) unable to edit Wikipedia. Can you please request or just make this new page? It’s called Rex (musical group). They are a band that produces Hardcore and Black Metal. 184.8.94.144 (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have just edited Wikipedia, so you are not blocked. I assume you don't mean Rex (band)? WP:MUSIC will tell you about the requirements for new musical articles. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IPBE

Thank you for giving me the WP:IPBE privilege. I haven't run into any problems with the hard block on my IP range since 2018; though it has on a couple of occasions prevented me from editing while accidentally logged-out (which is a good thing).

I got what I considered a thoroughly complacent and unsatisfactory set of responses at meta:Stewards/Elections 2020/Questions#Rangeblocks. No candidate properly addressed my second question. Narky Blert (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Narky. No problem. We do try and keep on top of collateral and unfortunately you are that. This is one of those situations where I know more about the reason than you do and I can't really tell you anything, but let's just say this will allow you to continue editing as you were without interruption. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to know anything, and have little curiosity. FYI, I live in a block of 81 flats; I doubt there is much spread of IPs over the building. Narky Blert (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts - if there's any publically-available info on WP as to where an extra pair of casual eyes might come in handy, point me towards it. I don't go looking for WP:VAND or WP:DE; but occasionally fall across it, and know something about how much of a timesink assembling a case, and following it up, can be. If there's none you can share, I will understand.
(On another site, I got at least two LTAs promoted into our KOS (kill-on-sight) list, and another cowering back to their original account only. Once everyone knew what their signature edits and usernames were, they were in trouble.) Narky Blert (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, where to begin. Each to their own. For the general case, you could try stalking a few trouble-finding admins or checkusers. Personally, I've always found Special:Log/newusers a great place to find lots of trouble - well worth a bookmark. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About the only redeeming feature in that list is the number of accts which are redlinked in all three major fields. I trust there are similar logs for new WP:AUTOCONFIRM and WP:XCON accts? (I've just discovered that both WP:ACON and WP:ECON, shortcuts I expected to find, are WP:EASTEREGGs with no hatnotes.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
{{selfref}} hatnotes added to both. Narky Blert (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As that IPBE seems to have worn off with no adverse consequences so far, please allow me to point you to WP:VULTURE. Narky Blert (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

I will vandslise my page till I am tired — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.7.192.17 (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

728hd729hva7

Can user: 728hd729hva7 please be blocked ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Return of a disruptive editor?

Hi Zzuuzz. A while ago you blocked User:Fooerdannyd, who was adding a nonsense category they created to lots of articles, citing long-term abuse. There is now another account, User:Eurasia has always been our ally, we have always been at war with Eastasia, doing the same thing. Perhaps you know more about this individual. Kanguole 09:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you blocked another such account just yesterday. Kanguole 09:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanguole: Thanks to Bkonrad for blocking them. This muppet is known as User:TryToBeFunny. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was a tag-team pair of accounts along with User:Eastasia has always been our ally, we have always been at war with Eurasia. older ≠ wiser 12:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject on open proxies discussion

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have either contributed to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests in the past six months or are an active editor listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users. I have started a discussion regarding the project's current status at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies#Reboot, you are invited to participate in the discussion. If you are not interested in the project, no action is required on your part; this is a one-time notification and you will not receive any further messages. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC) (on behalf of User:GeneralNotability)[reply]

Open proxies verification

You mentioned that you have a verification process for open proxies folks - mind putting me through that when you have the time? If I'm going to complain about inactivity and try to change things, it would probably help if I show that I know what I'm doing :). For what it's worth, I've got some background in computer security and am pretty well acquainted with nmap and the like. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I should tell you this, but there is nothing technically preventing an admin adding themselves to the list, as I did, since it is assumed that all admins at all times have enough good judgment to know when they don't know something. But realistically yes, anyone would probably benefit from a little training - so OK, I'll need to rustle up some current data for that. Your first task, should you choose to accept it, is change your IP address using an open proxy. Your second task is to make a harmless edit on Wikipedia using a proxy. I'd recommend two methods: a web proxy, and a HTTP proxy. Don't worry if you find it difficult, and I'd recommend this page if you haven't already seen it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know that I can "technically" add myself to the list, and I do think I've got the technical competence necessary, but in cases like this I prefer to go through the training (both to show that I'm subject to the same expectations as everyone else and because I often do learn something!) I'll see what I can find. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've found plenty of HTTP proxies...the problem is finding one that ST47bot and procsee bot haven't gotten to already! I found Wikipedia:Open_proxy_detection to tip me to possible open proxies, and some googling from there led me to a few online lists of proxies, but everything I've found so far has been caught by one of the bots, a global block, or both (and when I've connected to one of the few unblocked proxies, their traffic is coming out somewhere else that is blocked). GeneralNotability (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, they're quite rampant those bots. You can edit the IP's talk page? This is just a warmup exercise, to get you used to some practical proxy IP confirmation. I'm on the lookout for some equally practical problems to tackle. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I picked my favorite suspected open proxy (nmap thinks it's a printer of all things) and added a signature to the talk page at Special:Diff/983316048. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralNotability:. So, based on what I've seen, I'm happy to add you to the verified users list. I just thought I'd mention that before I actually do it. We will have to work on formalizing some sort of 'training' for the project, but if you need input you're always welcome to give me a shout. As someone adding you to the list, I'll also reserve the right to randomly provide unsolicited advice :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zzuuzz, thank you for the vote of confidence! Agreed on formalizing something, I'm happy to help however is needed. And your unsolicited advice is always welcome :). GeneralNotability (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Be all the Bork you can be

I was going to serve Espresso! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hi ZZuuzz, a couple of days ago I sent you an email about a COI/UPE issue, and I just wanted to check if you received it. I know it was rather long and maybe overly detailed, so I appreciate that it may take some time to process, but I wanted to make sure it wasn't lost in transit. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 20:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bonadea, yes it's due to processing time vs available time. I should get back with a response in the next couple of days. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard for WP:IPBE

Suppose a user requests IPBE due to a particular situation. Do you have standard advice on when to grant it? Or do you do an investigation in each case? Suppose there were somebody who has plenty of edits and is a well-known person (within the computer industry) in real life. That hypothetical person has no special need to use a VPN other than a desire for privacy. Would it depend on the respectability of the VPN? Or whether there was already vandalism from the range the VPN is using? EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, and congrats on your appointment. I'm not sure if I've ever spelled out my criteria for IPBE, but I think it boils down to one thing: is this person going to abuse it? There is only one way to abuse it, and that's by evading blocks, bans, or other scrutiny from anywhere other than that account - in other words by operating a good hand account along with some bad hands. This is a judgment call. I've certainly granted it to certifiable real people (notably, often techies), though this isn't always a guarantee of good behaviour. And yes, I would grant it for the reasons of privacy, using any VPN they like, if the request is reasonable. You describe it as a desire, some would probably describe it in stronger terms if pressed. Is some investigation involved? Usually, perhaps always, but I'll tell you now that a CU investigation is not always going to be informative. I should maybe point out, for full disclosure, that I tend slightly towards the more liberal end of the IPBE granting spectrum. And I should also suggest that the IPBE policy shouldn't be read too literally - there've been many discussions suggesting it isn't quite worded right, but the right proposals for changing the wording has never been made. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shingling

Hi zzuuzz - could you maybe block Special:Contributions/88.105.81.121 again? It's obviously Shingling334, with typical edits about the president of Cyprus etc. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again... he's back on the same IP after the 42-day block expired. Same old edits about Ersin Tatar and other Turkish Cypriot politicians, presidents, etc. --IamNotU (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would you mind blocking him on Special:Contributions/79.67.196.218? The usual geolocation and edits about Turkish/Turkic presidents for the last few days. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FreePN

Hello zzuuzz. There seems to be a new thing going on, P2P VPNS. This a very interesting topic. A new service called "FreePN" allows P2P tunneling to residential connections. It currently works on Ubuntu Linux. Anyways, I know a bit about open proxies (Have hosted before) and I can tell you that 90% of traffic that goes through them is automated spam, usually by a datacenter IP connecting to it. I tried freePN today (had to install Ubuntu in a VM because I use Fedora) and I so far I found 3 IP addresses: One was a Linode IP, which was obviously blocked. But the other 2 were residential connections that are not blocked. What do you think about residential proxies/ VPN? They seem like they have infinite potential for abuse. 193.238.13.252 (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi anon. Yes, they can be a pain in the arse. We've already seen this type of thing with the likes of VPN Gate. You know what happened? It got heavily abused and, after a number of range blocks, someone wrote a bot to block it from editing Wikipedia. Not completely, I'll grant you, but massively so. I can only think that the same will happen again if this one gets off the ground. As you suggest, some of these are going be going through data centers and other already-blocked places. In response to your other question, letting someone use your IP address is inherently risky: The People Who Risk Jail to Maintain the Tor Network. You would know this if you've looked at traffic passing through your proxy IP. That article is five years old and the Feds are a bit wiser, but the risks haven't really changed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thanks for the insight. 74.90.182.126 (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User

Please could you lose this edit and user.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 23:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you online?

I want to send you an email. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: OK. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. and email sent. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request Revision Deletion

Per WP:CRD#3, Could you please delete those edit summary and content, which edited by User:No1bei-lun-jian-si-le? Thank you. --SCP-2000 13:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Dixie guy an LTA? If so, who is it?

Is the Dixie guy an LTA? If so, who is it? 4thfile4thrank (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Trolling or something"

It's sad to see blocks handed out, well, because it's sad to see that they are needed.

But at least I got a chuckle out of this log entry. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favourites to be sure. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dunley

@Zeng8r:

Feel free to redirect me to another venue such as WP:SOCK. Yesterday, you blocked Dunley and deleted Florida–Vanderbilt football rivalry re a banned editor. Today, new editor Special:Contributions/Posey Pack created links to that deleted article. The banned editor has previously done this, creating and linking an article with two accounts. I'm happy to take Posey to SOCK, but behavioral evidence is clear if you'd like to handle it. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Posey Pack went to SPI for resolution. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CalebHughes UW Dawgs (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exemption?

Thanks for the IPBE on ENWP. Now the global block as hit my IP address. I've emailed Stewards and the Admin who made the block. Is there anything else I can do to get a Global IPBE? thanks MassiveEartha (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it's been resolved now, thanks! MassiveEartha (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet question

Hello, Zzuuzz,

I have a question about a recent sockpuppet case you worked on. In this case, KGBishna was found by you to be a sockpuppet of TryToBeFunny. In this case from July, Buddy Albania was found to be a sockpuppet of Lass-Lass. But both KGBishna and Buddy Albania created Category:Stop Delete This Categories with the exact same edit summary which seems like a big coincidence. I know checkusering is more of an art than a science but this seems worth noting. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thanks. I'm sure about this result, and have no reason to doubt the other. The thing is though, it's sometimes possible to know what the original text of a deleted page was.[2] Given the precision involved here, I'd say that a copypaste was the most likely explanation from either user, and this one is no stranger to impersonations. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Zzuuzz. Thanks for that. I'm not sure why any of that happened, but it's wasn't the first time and it probably won't be the last. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Special:Diff/994507558. You're welcome. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of a strange way to seek revenge more than two years later, but to each his or her own. If you, Oshwah, 5 albert square or another admin want to unblock the master, then I’m OK with that. Even though doing so would not be the end of the world as we know, I’d still feel fine. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly - I'm used to it now.... lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I (or another CU) am the only one who can unblock the master, since it's a check user block. ;-) I've accepted the user's unblock conditions and have unblocked them. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: That's fine. Perhaps there should be a CIR indef block for poor attempts at sockpuppetry and other types of disruption? The sock account not only posted on my user talk page, pinged me on their user page, but they also announced themselves to the world on two other admins' user talk pages, including one who is a CU/Oversighter. I'm assuming this person wanted to get caught because that's not really a good way to try and keep something a secret. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly - HA! Yeah, I guess... lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"First inauguration of Donald Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect First inauguration of Donald Trump. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 23#First inauguration of Donald Trump until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. cookie monster (2020) 755 05:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You might be interested in what's going on here. Sro23 (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

LTA/SBT

You may be interested in User:Bbaaeeee. Based on their contributions (see edits to any kind of sandbox), this may be a WP:LTA/SBT first registered account. They even describe themselves as a 'sandbox destroyer' on their user page. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I feel confident this is not the Tuscan troll (thanks Favonian) and that we haven't seen their first account. Here are some metrics I used, apart from the presence of an account: 1) They can speak English, 2) They are not throwing abuse on their talk page, and 3) they have attempted to make constructive edits. As well as a useful resource, the sandbox is a magnet for ongoing problems. I did wonder if this was Sonicfan200530, who has returned more than once, but I don't think so. There are many other sandbox trolls, but only one SBT. The SBT's main purpose in life, by the way, is to preserve the sandbox at all costs. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into that zzuuzz, that's good to hear :-) Pahunkat (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gender LTA

Thanks for the what I now see was a VERY extension checkuser sweep for the political/gender POV LTA. I had blocked several ranges a few month back after encountering them, but they have a tendency to move to proxies. -- ferret (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, fyi.-- zzuuzz (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They made this page Marquinhos Wikipediano

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Battle_of_Montese — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:C7C9:21F3:2937:4151:5D0B:17 (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Zzuuzz, please see this and other blocks for the same person--you placed one, Widr just placed one. Can you figure out a better, wider range? I'd do it myself--but WE HAVE AN APPOINTMENT WITH THE DENTIST.... Drmies (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. That's My Royal Young. I see Ohnoitsjamie has knocked the /40 out the park. Good job. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was on the fence about account creation block, thanks for patching that up. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all. On the bright side, no cavities for my boy, and we got macarons from Aldi on the way back so I'm happy. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Zzuuzz,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! NASCARfan0548 ↗ 02:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Rollback

Hi, Please grant me rollback Nitesh003 (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for asking. Normally people supply a reason for wanting rollback, no matter how obvious it may be. I've taken a look at your contributions anyway, and see that you appear to be still relatively new around here. I think you would benefit from gaining some more experience to convince both yourself and others that such a grant would be beneficial... remember rollback is not necessary or even useful for most editing. Also please use more edit summaries. Once you've figured out and demonstrated a need that you can responsibly resolve with rollback, don't hesitate to ask again. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi. I see you have the "email this user" option enabled. As a courtesy, can I ask if I can email you about a potential issue to get your advice please? Mark83 (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark83: You may indeed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GungePlunge

Hello Zzuzz, thanks for blocking Gungeplunge. You cited the reason "LTA", would you mind contributing to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jakeswish where I filed a SPI report? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pahunkat: I've tagged the sock. Sro23 did the right thing with the report. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I posted this before the SPI was closed and before the user was tagged. Thanks for helping :-) Pahunkat (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CA thanks

Thanks for your quick action in securing my compromised account, User:Curbon7! I had a keylogger on my PC that I didn't know about. I've already emailed the Stewards to coordinate my re-access to the account. This could've been bad if it wasn't detected so quickly since I have reviewer privileges here. Again, thanks for your good work!! 2601:58A:8100:EE70:B18F:441E:A88D:915D (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adamtt9

You correctly blocked Adamtt9 as a compromised account. The Trust & Safety team validated that account control was reestablished, so I unblocked the account. Let me know if you have any concerns with my action. --Yamla (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yamla, thanks for both doing the thing and letting me know. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Tomos Roberts

Hello zzuuzz... I'm slightly apprehensive to message you because I'm not entirely sure if this is the proper forum. I've re-submitted my draft after many substantial changes (after it was initially declined). I realize it can take 3+ months to review, but is there a way to determine where I am in the queue? Also, can it conceivably be declined after 3 months, I make the necessary changes, I am required to wait another 3 months, and on and on? I think you'll understand what I'm attempting to ask.
Thank you, kindly!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Ryancoke2020. You may have come across my name because I recently had to temporarily disable User:Curbon7's account, the person who originally reviewed your article. I expect he'll be back soon and he's really the person to ask. I would suggest his talk page, mentioning how you've addressed his review comments, and then a short wait. I would also strongly recommend the links contained in the template at the top of the draft. However you're also welcome to post here and I'll see what I can do. If you want my initial impression from my own personal viewpoint (and perhaps the viewpoint of many reviewers), with the intent of being helpful, there's too many references to non-independent and non-reliable sources. I would actually recommend removing these non-independent sources entirely, removing anything to IMDB, YouTube, Facebook, and tabloids, then removing content unsupported by any sources, and then working with what's left. Mentally, this is probably what most reviewers will do, with anything removed being noise. I know that may seem contradictory to things you might have read, or assumed, about article content, but it's better to focus on - and highlight - the foundations first. If you actually want to know what the queue looks like, see this page. Your article is currently listed as 7 days, but I would say it's probably somewhere in the middle. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello zzuuzz... Thank you very much for the thoughtful, detailed response. Much appreciated!
One follow-up question, if you'll permit me... Is it possible to include information that isn't sourced or doesn't have a reference/citation? For example, as you've mentioned, I do have some "iffy" sources, and although they're legitimate, they simply may not meet Wikipedia's standards - and I fully understand this. That said, can I still include the information from these sites, while excluding the citation? I do see some Wikipedia pages where not every detail or sentence has a reference. Just looking for a wee bit of guidance as I know this is likely the biggest stumbling block in getting my draft approved.
Again, thank you, kindly, for the reply!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I hope to have conveyed in my previous response that more information is not necessarily better, from the point of view of getting a Wikipedia article established. Once the fundamental article has been established, it can grow from there, and yes, some self-published sources, even the occasional iffy source, or even unreferenced statement, might be used to supplement it. Sometimes these might even be accepted in a draft. However one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies is WP:V, and though you don't have to read the whole thing, the first bits are worthy of close examination - and particularly the balance between verifiable and referenced. But again, at this stage I would focus on quality over quantity. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello zzuuzz... VERY helpful! Thank you - truly!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Hello again User:Ryancoke2020. I see that you are receiving some excellent advice both on your talk page and on the draft itself, from some well-meaning and experienced editors like Possibly and Berchanhimez. Much of the advice is basically a re-wording of what I said above. Creating a biographical article about a living individual who is interested in self-promotion (I'm sure you've seen this) is a combination of the some of the most difficult things to attempt on Wikipedia, and you should listen to what these users have to say and accept any help. If you want someone to refrain from editing your talk page, you can just politely ask them to stop and it's expected they'll generally respect that, but you'll receive less much-needed advice. Do also bear in mind that Wikipedia is a collaboration and content tends to get edited mercilessly by anyone. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, zzuuzz! Life comes at you quickly sometimes, and last night was one of those times... lol I wasn't aware that, while still in draft form, contributors/reviewers could suddenly, and without warning, begin to delete entire sections of a draft. I think it was the "without warning" that was so jarring for me. Also, being admonished for referring to a draft as "my" draft - when this was meant as innocently as could be - seemed a bit petty, though it's all good now. That said, I understand that Possibly meant well, and I've since incorporated many of their changes - and intend on continuing to do so. Lesson learned, I assure you! I've made additional progress today, but as a first responder (during this tumultuous time), my time can, often, be limited. I will continue to work hard and to integrate the various suggestions which come my way. Thank you, once again, for your fairness and your guidance. Much appreciated!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your contribution Ryancoke2020. All our time is under pressure, but hopefully you can stick around in the longer term to fix some typos or something. If anyone ever tells you that Wikipedia can't be infuriating, you can now confirm to them that they'd be wrong. Such is the nature of any type of editing or quality control, but it is what makes Wikipedia. Also huge thanks to Possibly for your patient and hard, hard work :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello zzuuzz - You're, quite possibly, the kindest, most encouraging and genuinely fair person I've had the pleasure of encountering here on Wikipedia. You make this worthwhile and you should be commended! Kudos, my friend!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Very helpful in addressing a concern of mine. Thorough, thoughtful and genuinely helpful. An exemplar for others, in my humble opinion... Thank you! Ryancoke2020 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

new jack socks

i have found this new sock there,https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.131.1.0, i know its a sock because a new user would hardly know about jack or marquinhos, clearly either a jack or marquinhos sock, i ask for more investigations on it.177.58.180.80 (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

new possible sock found:https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/2804:431:C7C9:21F3:2937:4151:5D0B:17177.58.180.80 (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


just saying i am a old ip user on wikipedia, i joined in 2019 with my first ip, so i k about them. 177.58.180.80 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential vandal tagged you

The very eloquently named User:Buqttueef mentioned you on his user page, suggesting that you guys may have a history with each other. I suspect they are block-worthy, but you know the history better than I do. Good luck!49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louis

Please see this thread at ANI.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This morning

Can you help block TikTok vandals? I'm tired of giving out warnings. Shinyeditbonjour. 12:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, blocking them is not going to stop the firehose. However, I have a tip: if they hit the filter and are prevented from making the edit, you may consider this a warning, and thus we all do nothing. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zuzaazuz This account was disallowed by the filter. 13:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinyedit (talk • contribs) [reply]

They've been hitting that filter for months, maybe longer, every time they visit enwiki and the software tries to autocreate the account. I assume it's just a common type of username. Someone could try and tell them about the problem on one of their talk pages, or maybe with a ping, but since they've never edited anywhere I don't think it's important to them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:TryToBeFunny

Is this him? I am suspicious due to https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Las_Vegas_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1003628898&diffmode=source Steve M (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice guess, but it's not them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular atrophy

Perhaps you could reblock Molecular atrophy without talk page access? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The glock has kicked in. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Zzuuzz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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. B732 (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Zzuuzz, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
NASCARfan0548 ↗ 18:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

223.229.190.132

Can user:223.229.190.132 please be blocked ASAP for vandalism? CLCStudent (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thanking you for blocking UPPERCASE HAVOC, he kept trolling and reverting edits on articles like Hello. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for taking action on my situation. I have a feeling the editor that I reported will just come back with another account or IP, is it possible that 2020–21 Anaheim Ducks season and 2020–21 Los Angeles Kings season receive pending changes protection? These pages are affected by the editor, and these are also pages that I edit frequently as well. I realize the pages don't get vandalized, but it would be nice to have them protected to prevent the sock from editing them. Yowashi (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think my advice would be to see where it goes from here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User Battlefield33

Looks like Louis again.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, sigh. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russian LTA

Ts Тэтчер умерла an LTA? If so, what to look out for? I have seen LTAs that have Russian letters in their name. Steve M (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can find one in the recent history of this talk page, but it's not that one. This one, I'm not sure. It may be somehow related to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Stop Hyptonization, but that's not entirely certain. Also, the Hansen account(s), not sure about that one either. They appear to be in another country. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

71.67.193.22

Just FYI, I've placed a lengthy block on Special:Contributions/71.67.193.22 after an AIV report but you CU-blocked it for a year just over a year ago so I thought I'd let you know in case it's the same person. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for the notification. Of course, it's the same user, the Louisville Loon. I hereby predict two things: more edits from another IP range, and a sock requesting protection, somewhere. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this LTA who edits acronyms like SH and GTJ?

I want to find an LTA page for this. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeepNikita. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zzuuzz, Thanks, and to be honest, if I were him, I would add those too, because they actually make sense in a way. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the style guide would agree with most of them. Anyway, this LTA is banned mainly due to persistent personal attacks and harassment, so their edits are not retained. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IPBE

I believe adminship automatically confers IPBE. WP:IPBE claims that, anyway. Note that I may be misreading the policy or the logs. :) --Yamla (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a footnote about torunblocked, which I'm currently using. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha! Right-o, no surprise, you know what you are doing! --Yamla (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It probably won't be for long, and I don't plan on doing anything suspicious in the meantime. It seems Wikipedia is unavailable on my usual network, so I've had to temporarily move to ¿Germany. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Hello, can *Cd159298323 be blocked as soon as possible? Block evasion of LTA Evlekis. Thank you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 09:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glocked. I'll start on cleanup in a bit. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zzuuzz, Thank you very much, here's another Cd159289323. Ashleyyoursmile! 10:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New target, List of neurological conditions and disorders

Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yourself :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sock tag question

Hi zzuuzz, I recently tagged Telsho as a suspected Ineedtostopforgetting sockpuppet, based on the evidence presented at the SPI plus your comment here. Well, now the user is complaining, saying CU cleared them of being a sock and I have to remove the tag because it will hurt their chances of getting an unblock. Any thoughts on this, as a CU? Sro23 (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sro23 . Certainly I did not clear them, and I don't see anyone else doing so either, so I stand by that comment. In fact, to be precise, I'm reminded of the bastard verdict. I can also say that I have no personal objection to the tag as it stands, since the behaviour speaks with some volume. I remember this one is technically a bit of an artform, involving networks smelling of deliberate segregation. Therefore it may remain forever in the range of possible. I'd have to take a deep dive into some data to say anything more up-to-date or certain, which I may well do when I get a chance - if anything changes I'll let you know. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think it's clear to any editor not born yesterday the user is a sock of someone, at the very least. I'll be leaving the tag be. Sro23 (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another CalebHughes sockpuppet

I think I found another sockpuppet of CalebHughes. This guy, Detroitian, just created a random college football rivalry page and tagged me in the talk page just like his former alt Clemsonian. I don't know how to do sockpuppet investigations and stuff, so can you just block him from editing please like you did with Clemsonian? KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Very WP:DUCKy! Blocked in perpetuity. Incidentally, they created a talk page for the rivalry article containing the sole line [[User:KingSkyLord]]. Looks like it's getting personal. Favonian (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, always interested to hear about that one, either on arrival or despatch. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

I just saw your log. The WMF should put you on payroll. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just another socktastic Sunday. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia template IP

You blocked 107.77.228.229 (talk · contribs) with the comment 'Long-term abuse'; they've returned as 107.77.228.78 (talk · contribs). BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. FYI. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I took a quick look at the range and recognised the wording from AN/I, but didn't remember the name. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zzuuzz/Archive_39&oldid=1186990614"