User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 26

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

Filter 271
Hi Zzuuzz, I am a regular checker of edit filter 271 results, but in the last day it has gone crazy identifying regular vandalism, as well as many harmless edits, so that the spambot edits have become hard to find. It does not look to have changed recently, but something else has. Do you know what has happened? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is almost certainly the systematic addition of new lines in edit summaries. If it's a problem take out the \n in the summary. I'll take a proper look later. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The format of the edit summary had also changed at the end of the beginning, whether by user input or software change I don't know. Other filters probably also rely on the check. I've removed the new line check, which was useful. The change seems like a problem, but it can be a separate one. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that filter output has certainly settled down now. SO thank-you! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

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

on the subject of vandalism
119.254.84.90 (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

DTTR
Hi, Zzuuzz, I don't think that your Don't template the regulars message | here would really be appropriate in the case of User:Amaury, who was either a) inexperienced enough to inadvertently leave an incorrect vandalism warning, or b)  | did so maliciously. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not uncommon these days, and forms part of the modern learning curve. Given enough examples, they will get tired of people pointing it out to them. My advice remains however, for practical rather than policy reasons, don't use templates on users. This one was called 'tempabuse2' you know. It explained what the sandbox was for, and asked them to look at the Introduction to Wikipedia page. If you had written that, I would have thought you were mad. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Semiprotected talk page
Zzuuzz, there is discussion ongoing (here) about whether talk pages should even be protected, and there is agreement that indefinite protection is rarely appropriate. That said, you semi-protected Talk:HI nearly two years ago, and it's long past time to lift that protection, please. For talk pages, 24 hour protection is probably better. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'll reply here. I agree about absolutely minimal talk page protection. Please check my logs. I can say with some certainty that this page is exceptional. That said I welcome any other admin to unprotect it and watch over it, as I shall not. Please ask if you need further advice. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A user you blocked
Has been mentioned at ANI under the Ultraman heading, and your name as the blocker. I have listed several anonymous users there and request you take a look at them on the assumption you're a checkuser. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks I will take a look. But you assume too much - they haven't demoted me to CheckUser. I hope not, I couldn't afford the pay cut. Remote viewing is what you get when you get to my pay grade. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I hate pestering you, but I assumed from your statement above you were going to follow up to see if there was any socking at Ultraman regarding the last 4 IP's that edited it. Please ping me to let me know if you'd prefer I take this elsewhere.  Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's no problem. I did take a look and was waiting for a follow-up. There's nothing I can really add. I can't say with any probability either who this user is, or, unusually, whether they are even a banned or registered user. As these are open proxies I cannot see that a CheckUser will be fruitful. I am not well placed to opine about the behaviour or the content dispute. I'll understand if you want to take it elsewhere. -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Usernames
Why have you done this? --Phil Copperman (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The user is blocked and your edits violate our BLP policy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if he is blocked then that is that, what do you mean my edits violate BLP? Can you elaborate please? Phil Copperman (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have used a better edit summary for the first edit - I was concentrating on blocking a troll at the time. One does not always need to repeat, spell out and clearly reformulate, the vandalism. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

What wonders I shall make of her parts
Thank you for cleaning up that ugly mess. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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

87.6.121.181
Multiple vandal IP addresses have mentioned you in nasty ways in their vandalism, and I was just wondering if you know of the first of these vandal IPs (I linked one of them) or user if this vandal was ever registered. Dustin ( talk ) 23:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I came here about the same issue, having just deleted a comment at Wikipedia talk:Sandbox. WP:RevDel required I think. 220  of  Borg 13:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This user has never created an account, to my knowledge. I refer to it as the sandbox troll from Italy, and have maintained non-acb blocks for several years (see user:zzuuzz/rangeblocks). I would suggest multiple range blocks in extension to what I've recently blocked, if it's causing a problem until I get a chance to deal with it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You will probably find the earliest edits in . Trolling the sandbox since 2008 .. the sandbox troll.  -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see... I even have an SPI here... Dustin  ( talk )

Andrea Brillantes
I note that you have semi-protected the article - a rather pointless action, since the WP:BLP-violating material was being added by registered users, and (correctly) removed by an IP. Given the nature of the material, I would suggest that full protection was more appropriate - and that the material needs to be revdelled too, since it clearly shouldn't appear in the article history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I took the view that the most desperate situation was the anon vandalism, and that registered users can be treated on an individual basis if they become a persistent problem. I believe this will be highly effective in sorting the crap for the time being. I am as always pressed for time and sometimes get through things slowly, but you're probably right about the revdel. Maybe you should contact oversight. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You might like to take a look at this edit while you are at it: - one of the contributors responsible for the material editing the other one's post. I detect a distinct whiff of socks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This cosmetic change seems innocent on its own, and from all else I can reasonably see.. Though I'm sure we could probably both find guidelines indicating that one shouldn't bother. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As for 'anon vandalism', I can't see much obvious signs of it - instead we have anon IPs removing the violations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to also see my previous comment about full protection on the talk page. I did find vandalism but mainly as I say, semi-protection will clear the mud for the time being. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/650
Hi Zzuuzz. Just going through some edit filters to trim back ones we might not need since we're hitting the cap. Are you tracking this filter or planning to use it for something? It seems pretty unwieldy for just log tracking. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No not my filter, no plans. I was looking at disabling it last time, but eventually didn't - not because I think it's useful. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, sorry, wasn't paying attention when I was figuring out who made it. Sam Walton (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Related sock farms
Hello. On 9 July 2015 you blocked 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 named after, the at that moment oldest known account in that lot. , the now indeffed user who bragged about Nelson Brothers (a partially hoax article that fits in with what the Pumpkin socks do) is the latest in a long row of Pumpkin socks, so maybe you and Bbb23 should compare notes, and put all the socks in the same drawer. Provided that the other blocked users in your lot fit the MO (which is adding nonsense to articles, mixed in with more serious text). Thomas.W talk 19:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Zzuuzz did not block Daniels Jerkins. It was who blocked on March 23, 2015. Zzuuzz cut off Talk page access, etc., on July 9. Daniels Jerkins has only one non-stale edit (July 5), well after being blocked. That said, Daniels Jerkins is ✅ to, which is a real shame as Jerkins is significantly older than Max Pumpkin, and I don't want to go through all the work of fixing this. Perhaps Jpgordon can tell us if there are earlier accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure this was ceiling fan nonsense. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I know it's been a while,, but the Max Pumpkin accounts don't match the confirmed Beals accounts, both in location and otherwise. I didn't do an exhaustive cross-check against Beals, but that's what I found based on what I did. Several of the Max Pumpkin accounts claim they're Beals. I think it's nonsense based on the technical data. In any event, regardless of who's who, the important thing is the account is blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So it was fake ceiling fan nonsense. Doesn't matter much. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hehe. Couldn't have said it any better myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I blocked and re-blocked a whole load of accounts around the same time starting with User:Alanium Value through to about User talk:94.196.246.206 ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=670736559 ANI request]) (see deleted contribs). I've no idea about names, but I could pull out a list. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not very nice, are they? Don't bother pulling out a list. As long as they're blocked, it's fine. Now, the Max Pumpkin socks are a blend. Some of them are obvious like Alanium Value (in conjunction with the technical data), but some of them are not. I'm more concerned with the not-so-obvious ones than those that would be blocked no matter who they were related to.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK I see. So I would say Beals was the common name here. I'll take a second look at the other MO. With schools being quiet for the summer.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Having immediately come across [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Burfields&diff=prev&oldid=663662884 this] as one of the accounts I re-blocked, you can understand my caution about names. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

She's back
Hi Zzuuzz,

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

For dealing with sockpuppetry

 * Thanks. It's not exactly difficult :) Sometimes you can wave to a silently passing checkuser here, if they're not already on it, or we all get bored. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Migosyrn sockpuppetry
I am going to raise an SPI for checkuser. Any disagreement on that? Optakeover (Talk)  17:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to my logs for the last hour or two. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * May I have the link, please? Optakeover  (Talk)  17:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Going back about four hours (including the thread above) it seems I've blocked quite a few relevant accounts today. I use this link. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ For your perusal at Sockpuppet_investigations/Migosyrn. Optakeover  (Talk)  17:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

thank you
I was getting tired. (=_=) Double sharp (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
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)
 * Some strange people around. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism
Hello Zzuuzz, sorry but this is not the right way. Regards --Serols (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello. Please explain further how you would have liked this user blocked, and whether you wanted to have been notified of the block. Do you think the report was formatted correctly, with the correct amount of spaces? -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Zzuuzz, you've revised my contribution, but the normal way is editing. I hope you know the difference. Regards --Serols (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed your report after it had been dealt with. Simple. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Zzuuzz, now I know that you obviously do not know the difference. With your version I get a minus point. This is the right way. Regards --Serols (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain how many points you're left with. Because the report was formatted incorrectly (with a misspelled username), you can't rely on a bot to remove it. The report remained on the board minutes after the user was blocked, long after the bot was due. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Zzuuzz, when anyone revised a contribution, then it will be saved in the statistics "Deleted edits" - now I have one more. I hope you understand my problem. Regards --Serols (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I still can't find this statistic, but if anyone pays attention to any such statistics, they should have their error pointed out to them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandal 121.219.62.208
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)

GCSE / O-Level UK / CSE
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)


 * Hello, Zzuzz,


 * I have been having similar issues to User:83.104.51.74. We both seem to be being targeted by the same user. This user posts under many different IP addresses (and sometimes real accounts), most recently User:User:83.77.136.150 and User:Supervisor635.


 * This user is systematically removing dates from articles about qualifications and reverting those that put them back in. The user is clever, however, and buries these edits while adding in other information or just lies in the edit summary.


 * I have tried to follow Wikipedia's guidelines, culminating in a report on the edit warring notice board. This report gives many more details about the problems. Other users have come to agree with me, but nothing has been done yet. Now, the user is stalking me, reverting my edits and falsely accusing me of edit warring on my talk page.


 * I feel intimidated and have no idea what to do.


 * Can you help?


 * Thank you.


 * – Wumpus12 (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. I hope to be able to help to improve the clarity of situation, as I too am tired of it. Think of my protection of this article as a temporary measure to bring some heads together rather than to legitimise any changes (WP:BRD works in a similar way). I wasn't previously aware of the EW report, which seems helpful in starting to bring things together. The emergence of the new account is a somewhat troubling development, though I'll try and gloss over it as far as I can since registering an account is a legitimate pathway to editing. The change of IP address is also not a material issue as it's often beyond the user's control. I shall therefore refer to this editor (the 83.77 and 85.3.139.236) as the Supervisor. and to you above as 83.104. I am also going to ping User:WOFall, and will see you all at the article's talk page where we will be able to examine in fine detail the legitimacy of any particular edits and hopefully get to the bottom of it. I feel that possible eventual outcomes will include, and should include if appropriate, a ban from the topic for this editor. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That all sounds very promising. – Wumpus12 (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Supervisor635 has now given me an (unsigned) 'second warning' on my talk page because I refuted his/her other accusations against me. The warning has some subjective allegations about my behaviour and some outright lies (such as me deliberately deleting referenced material, when in fact that is what he/she is doing). The style/tone of the writing (particularly the last line) and the user's name almost make it sound like the editor is pretending to be some sort of administrator.


 * I shall not respond because I think this will just lead to more abuse. I don't like the warnings on my talk page, though. They make me look like an aggressive editor, when all I have done is put some referenced dates back into obscure articles.


 * To be honest, I feel like I should never edit Wikipedia again. I only edited occasionally, anyway, and am still unsure how I've been dragged into this. - Wumpus12 (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The aggressiveness is out of order, and I strongly suggest you ignore it. I will hopefully get around to speaking to this user very soon. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I certainly won't respond. - Wumpus12 (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Similarly annoyed, I wanted to revise the 3 pages to address some of the issues and reflect the 2015/6 changes to the syllabi and new numeric grading system, as well as adding a few more historical stat's and graphs, but as any change I add is either reverted, or the dates and / or statistics altered (vandalised) why bother. As Supervisor635 appears to be a fake admin account, I will just leave the pages in their current troubled state. 83.104.51.74 (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, that's that settled for the time being. The longer term issue will still need to be tackled, imo. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have undone Supervisor635's most recent edits (where no-one else has got there first).


 * Do I have to do anything to the entry on the Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit warring page?


 * Also, am I allowed to delete the fake warnings from my talk page? – Wumpus12 (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The EW report can be left for someone to close. You'll notice I've removed the notice on your page - sometime more credible if someone else does it (see also WP:REMOVED). -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. – Wumpus12 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The user is back. He/she is now creating a new account for each edit and, once again, removing the dates from articles. There's a pretty complete list of likely affected articles on the EW report. I've not attenpted to fix anything, as I can imagine exactly what the user's reaction will be. – Wumpus12 (talk) 19:46, 1 September 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)


 * Thank you. I have not logged into Wikipedia for a few days (as you may deduce from the subjects of the affected articles, I work in education – I am busy with the new academic year starting). It seems like things have moved on considerably since I was last here (thank you). I take on board your point about adding the dates back in, rather than just reverting all the changes. However, most of the affected articles have already been fixed by other users who have just reverted. For this reason, combined with the fact that most of the additions fail WP:NOTNEWS, I have just reverted back the final four articles (Higher School Certificate (United Kingdom), General Certificate of Education, Joint Matriculation Board and Associated Examining Board). Thank you again for your invaluable assistance. I actually feel like I can make the odd contribution to Wikipedia again without being attacked. – Wumpus12 (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

How to extend the life of full/semi protection
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)
 * Editing the talk page has nothing to do with it. Editing is the process of adding or changing text. Protection involves pressing a button, and not on the talk page. There is no requirement to edit the talk page. Doing so will not change or extend the protection. Please revert yourself. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But when there permanent vandalism, what to do? -- Akmaie Ajam (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no real way to tell if the vandalism is permanent unless the protection expires. I very much doubt you will find an admin who will re-protect a page which is already protected. They will wait for the protection to expire. However, if there ever was such a situation, non-admins can make the usual request at WP:RFPP, whilst admins will usually (probably) just go ahead and re-protect it, possibly for an indefinite period. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. -- Akmaie Ajam (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list
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)

A Dobos torte for you!
You were very timely in following up on my WP:AIV report. Thanks. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but .. best report I've seen for a long while. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad to give you the info you need. Been here a while, and know what is relevant. That bastard was uprooting an article that I and User:Michaelmas1957 had worked on long and hard.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

SPI
A new user has created 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)
 * Never mind, it's been deleted. Everymorning (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

ip block at our school
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)
 * Hello TeacherHart. That IP address was blocked back in May 2015 for two weeks, but it is not currently blocked. If you believe it is affected by an autoblock, please tell us the message you see when you try to edit using the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello TeacherHart. That IP address was blocked back in May 2015 for two weeks, but it is not currently blocked. If you believe it is affected by an autoblock, please tell us the message you see when you try to edit using the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello TeacherHart. That IP address was blocked back in May 2015 for two weeks, but it is not currently blocked. If you believe it is affected by an autoblock, please tell us the message you see when you try to edit using the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 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:

TeacherHart (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have cleared the autoblock of the IP but User:Deeznutsfuckoff remains indefinitely blocked. You should be able to edit using the IP and also as User:TeacherHart. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Zzuuzz. I sent you an email. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed. Good luck teaching them appropriate behaviour, Teacher. If you want to see their attempted edits, look at the filter log link. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both! TeacherHart (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Editing Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests
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)
 * This page has been under attack from a vicious troll. Perhaps you'd like to outline your proposed edits here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also note that this is a 'brand new editor'. With the history of sockpuppetry surrounding this article... BMK (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me User:Beyond My Ken - I also see that you have reverted my edit, which I disagree with given that this specific topic (and not just the university itself) should be under these categories given that tuition is rising nationwide and the event occurs inside New York City. Again, this would be better held inside the article's talk page so that the issue is less likely to come up again in the future. Having this discussion inside the talk page of Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests would be preferable, since that is how wikipedia is designed. I examined the talk page and see no evidence that this is under attack from any one specific 'vicious troll' other than perhaps bmk, who retains access to the talk page under your protection.. Can you clarify what edits were made that you disapprove of User:zzuuzz? I see some old threads were erased, but that they were archived, not suppressed, and that these discussions were not ongoing. Thanks IvritSheli (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, no excuse me. You've got 5 edits to the encyclopedia and you want to argue with a 10 year/170K+ veteran editor on how we categorize things? We don't put child articles into a category when the parent category is already in them. I explained that on your user talk page.  What you thnk we should do is not really relevant here. BMK (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, I just noticed that this brand-new editor uses "bmk" just as all the socks of Ferociouslettuce have. I suggest that the quacking in sufficient for a block. BMK (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want to argue. I want to have a reasonable and rational discussion about Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests on the talk page of the article. Since you've made many edits, is there any reason it appears you are not an admin? IvritSheli (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have pleasant conversations with block-evading sockpuppets. BMK (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that you have many unpleasant conversations on wikipedia. In the mean time we are both regular users. User:zzuuzz, can you please allow this conversation to continue on the talk page of the article in question? Thanks IvritSheli (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you are not in any respect a "regular user", you are a block-evading sockpuppet of "Ferociouslettuce", who has been using both IP and account socks every since they were blocked for disruptive editing on this article. You pose of innocence is something we have seen here on Wikipedia hundreds of times - it means absolutely nothing under the circumstances.  I have contacted the checkuser who blocked many of the other socks and requested they look at your account.  When they do, you will be blocked, just as all of Feorciouslettuce's socks have been blocked.  You see, you're just not very good at it. BMK (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

, 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)
 * You really need to get used to my style of writing, and my lack of investment in this thing. I do not have anything 'no matter what', nor have I said so. However appeals to authority addressed to me, do not generally turn out well. I will often look to others for their views, but I also said I will take an independent look (if you piss off out of it). I will then read the article and amend it as I see fit according to our aims and policies. The term 'single protest' is clearly not intended to be a comprehensive description of the page. But in the large scale of things, it is a single thing ("events surrounding an announcement"), which is why it's on one page.


 * I object to you editing anywhere near that topic, and you are on a very short leash on this page until your points have been made. Understand that I am busy. We are all busy. We are made more busy by the constant stream of people intentionally violating policies. The SPI page contains a very small proportion of this user's sockpuppets. While we sometimes say that SPIs are intended to keep track of every account used, they are often used only to get accounts blocked by people who don't have the tools to do so themselves, with the real location of the actual accounts, IP addresses and proxies being consigned to the dustbin of regular users' memory. Since you're curious, without looking, I would say we're well above ten. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

On-going SPI Case for Dude on riding dudes
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)
 * In my opinion this is one of many nameless idiots who has probably been banned many times under many names, and whose name does not even matter any more. However in a direct and helpful answer, JustBerry, I did just block User:Aspertardation - obviously the same user. More users will be found in the history of their most popular page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous complainant
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). I only noticed because I happened to be watching one of the talk pages. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification - it's very probably a sockpuppet of User:Supervisor635, who, it appears, goes by many other names, and just loves vandalising education articles (see my recent contribs today for context). -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (unworried) Having read the complaint, let me show you a classic: . There is also a relevant thread a little further up on this page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I figured it was as such. Quite odd behaviour, really; a very specific vandalism, almost as if it were some sort of compulsion. I can't imagine what they must have against dates and exams. Glad it's at least a known case. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I believe there is a very specific conflict of interest, but hey who knows. I notice they reported me to Phaedriel, who last edited 8 years ago (!?) -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw the Phaedriel edit too, so I'm assuming there's some kind of decade-old grudge here. In any event, I've blocked the two obviously closely related IPs.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason not to block the entire 2A02:1205:34D8:8960:0:0:0:0 | 2A02:1205:34D8:8960:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF range for say, 10 years? Those are IPv6 addresses and the whole lot is almost certainly allocated to the same user; the chances of a different person getting an address out of that range is really negligible on human timespans. --RexxS (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was looking at this earlier, but was concentrating on finding the contribs. It's reportedly assigned as a dynamic ISP - the user is based in Switzerland - but I couldn't glean much more info. I believe they've previously used 2a02:1205:5038:bec0:8cc2:a112:33eb:5e2, last year. If I had seen much more I would have blocked the range regardless. It may well be merited, given the probabilities you mention. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, there are about 3.4 x 10^38 IPv6 addresses. That's enough to give each person on Earth about fifty thousand million million million million addresses each. Even if you block a range with 2^64 addresses (2 x 10^19), the chance that somebody else will be allocated an address from that range is still infinitesimal. --RexxS (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I think I've seen enough, including edits from this range going back more than 3 months. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * and blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Zaid Hamid
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)
 * Thanks for the response. It is not so difficult. And at the cost of a little delay, there are always be more reviewers. (is he in prison?) -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As of mid-August...probably still there. WQUlrich (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This article for me is a great example of only being able to go by what the sources say. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

User "seems" to be a banned user, etc
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)
 * Supersede this for me will you? Also, this user was evading a block from yesterday. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't supersede it because I'm not an administrator. 86.149.12.63 (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You can supersede the link? -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If I were an administrator I would remove the link given there and replace it with a link to the subsequent community unban discussion. 86.149.12.63 (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It remains an authority, however I will see this link. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This editor's community unban has been the subject of numerous discussions.  See, for example, User talk:GB fan/Archive 7. 86.149.12.63 (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Vague. Unconvinced. I've seen some of these discussions before. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the one immediately after the unblock which resulted in the community unban?  The unblock itself, which will have been logged, shows the ban was rescinded. 86.149.12.63 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is too vague, and not a community unban discussion. Get the block on the main account lifted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:21, 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)
 * Without the promised link, I'm doing nothing - your only route is through Arbcom. Continual block evasion and disruptive posts at ANI will not run in your favour. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I followed the links and I reached this: User talk:DoRD/Archive 2. 86.149.12.63 (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw that temporary conditional unblock half an hour ago. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the discussion which immediately followed it? 86.149.12.63 (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that the community unban discussion? I saw the re-block two days later. I think we're done here. Would you like me to block you again? -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Did Fram see the discussion? 86.149.12.63 (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * . -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:01, 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)
 * This user's account is blocked and there has been no successful appeal against the block,
 * This user is community banned and there has been no successful appeal against the ban,
 * This user continues to violate Wikipedia policy, and refer to themselves in the third person

'The Cross Star Media' salting
Hi, 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)
 * The blanking edits look to me like they've already been put off. I'd personally go for a three strikes rule here, though no objections if someone else wants to salt it. I will check it later. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries :) samtar (msg) 12:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Any idea who it was? Doug Weller (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. I recently encountered it as and friend, hence the admiration for me and the other blocking admin. Not sure where you fit in. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Acalamari
LOL. You beat me to it, and the immediate blocking! --Efe (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really much decision making to be had there. I figured there'd be a queue.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The user name gave it away, though. =) --Efe (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
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)

Shanudrie Priyasad
Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe so. Let's see what happens in the next day or two, as I might also semi the article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The protection is going to expire soon. --George Ho (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Just curious.
I wonder if maybe it's time for WMF to handle the individual behind those socks. GoodDay (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder what they could actually do. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed Proxy Server
Hi, Could you look at this? Thanks. --Peace world  19:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much!
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. GABHello! 16:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm not sure where you might have met recently - do you recognise this user? -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I let FPAS know about another one of the IPs and the continuing disruption. But I made no actual edits, so this is unusually vindictive. This is the first time rev'del has ever been used on my page -- I'm honored! I probably revert a lot of socks during recent change patrolling. GABHello! 17:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
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)
 * Someone took care of it. Thanks for your help! Sundayclose (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly compromised account
Hello. I think '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)
 * I've had this user's pages on my watchlist a long time, and seen a few retributive vandals. It doesn't look at all right to me. For a start they would more than likely do a U1 if there was harassment. I didn't notice before, it might have been changed, but the account does not currently have email enabled. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 has made a CU-check and the account isn't compromised (in the sense that it's the same device from the same location, and a person with access to her password). Thomas.W talk 20:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's useful to know. So either a room mate or little brother, or something off wiki then. Remind me to stick my big fat administrative oar into this spammy thing. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Request unprotection of User talk:Optakeover
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)
 * No problem (ping MelanieN). -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if it isn't too much of a stretch for you, WP:AIV is kinda backlogged. Need some help here... One of the times I do wish I had the broom. Optakeover  (Talk)  18:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the best! Thanks so much. Optakeover  (Talk)  18:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Pete Doherty
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)
 * Hmm, not only is this person more colourful than the music, he is also a living biography. How about I meet you half way with six months PC protection. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

and
Thanks for your intervention here, but things have started to become a bit scary now. The same user is back as and. 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)


 * Let me answer each single one of your points:
 * Thanks for your intervention here, but things have started to become a bit scary now.
 * Booooo! I'm a ghost! Scary? Really? You're taking it way too seriously.
 * The same user is back as and .
 * Same as 46.252.205.187, not as 5.101.99.101, I repeat.
 * 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...
 * This is the interesting part: "disruptive style of editing"... Do you mean CORRECTING-WRONG-NAMES? Bozen is Bolzano, period. Meran is Merano, period. I'm not going to change, e.g., Martell to Martello, but since: the majority of people living in these 2 towns speaks Italian; the Wiki articles are "Bolzano" and "Merano", not "Bozen" and "Meran", which are just redirects; it was decided in this English version Wiki to use the Italian names instead of the German names for Bolzano and Merano; for all these reasons, don't you dare to talk again about "disruptive editing" because if there's one who's disruptive editing now it's you who continue changing Italian names to German.
 * 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),
 * I specify that I'm not changing Wikilinks, no more, I'm just correcting the word appearing in the article, in this way: Merano.
 * 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").
 * As I said, you're taking it way too seriously... Are you really raged for a soubriquet? And because I'm watching your edits in order to change those which aren't proper? Or do you think that I'm going to revert everything you do? No, I'm not, if you think so. But if you make edits such as Bolzano > Bozen or Merano > Meran, I'll revert them as every good Wikipedian would: yours are disruptive edits, not mine. I'll just make sure you won't vandalise articles with your "deutsching".
 * 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?
 * A semi-protection which would be wrong if you're asking it to keep your wrong edits there, as I said you're doing a wrong thing, Bozen is Bolzano and Meran is Merano, unless you want to start a discussion in Bolzano or Merano talk pages to change the names from Italian to German. You're wrong, face it. And I'm not a vandal, nor my edits are disruptive.
 * Greets, --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tschau!


 * Update: Continuing with his edit warring as and . --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2 IPs which corrected your wrong edits. So what?


 * Thanks for the update. I was just looking at those IPs, each based somewhere near Milan. I am trying to understand the nature of the changes. Open proxies - easily blocked without prejudice. Stalkers - easily blocked without mercy. Nationalistic edit warriors, if that's what this is - a little trickier. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me answer, zzuuzz, hear the other side. About the nature of changes: this is en.wikipedia, and it was established that if a geographical name has no English adaptation, it's used the name of the most spoken language in that place; Bolzano and Merano populations are made mainly of native Italian speakers, that's why the en.wikipedia articles about these 2 towns are Bolzano and Merano, while Bozen and Meran are just redirects, I'm not wrong. About my intentions towards the Italian_whose_dream_is_to_be_born_in_Austria_or_Switzerland, don't misunderstand, obviously I'm not going to revert everything he does, but I'll keep an eye on him so that if he does again something like this (germanising Italian names) I'll restore them, that's something I wasn't interested at all in, before; I think I'm making a good contributions to en.wikipedia, imagine a situation where some registered user starts changing every "Bolzano" in whatever article to "Bozen": shouldn't be there someone who stops him? And last but not least... Nationalist? Me? I'm not changing every German name to Italian, I'm just respecting the consensus: if a name must be German, it's left in German, but if a name must be Italian, i'll care it's kept in Italian. What's wrong in this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.1.181 (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for your time, it's indeed a bit trickier... South Tyrol has two official languages and each municipality has two (or sometimes even three) official names. Several years ago this situation resulted in eternal edit wars (only German names vs only Italian names vs German and Italian names but the Germans first and viceversa...). Since then WP:NBZ has been applied as a clear rule for the articles' names. Within an article text WP:NOTBROKEN should be a sufficient guideline: Don't edit a working link, if there is no clear improvement. And now to the IP's activities in Silvius Magnago, just to make an example:
 * I'll answer here too, I don't fear a comparison in a talk.
 * Changing the order of the names (Italians first)
 * That wasn't me, it was the other IP, I've already told you.
 * and again
 * That was me. Why would your edit would be right and mine wrong?
 * At that point I tried to find a proper solution: I put the German Meran, since the town was at Magnago's birth Austrian territory and the Italian name was officially introduced only in the 20ies, and I put the Italian Bolzano, since that is the clearly most common English name of the town.
 * Stopstopstopstop... We agree about Bolzano, not about Merano. As you can read in it.wikipedia (and you can read Italian) the name Merano was already in use before 1910, it wasn't a following invention. If we want to follow your reasoning, we should call all Italian towns with their Latin or dialetcal names when we talk about a previous period than the Italian unification, when Italian was made the officlai national language... Please.
 * The IP insists on the Italian Merano,
 * And you insist on the German Meran. Which is wrong, as I've proven.
 * ...and again.
 * Phew... Let's hope it's the last! Or are you going to revert again a correct edit?
 * In all those edits I struggle to find any interest in the article's subject. Not one single edit was an improvement of the article's text. That is annoying, because the IP has done the same in a bunch of articles, like, , . Here he even falsified a book title (!), in order to exchange a German town name with an Italian one. I think the entire behaviour is clearly disruptive and should be stopped. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. First of all, "you" are saying it's not an improvement. So, if we read "Bozen" instead of "Bolzano" we should leave it as it is? Even if, according to consensus, the correct name is Bolzano? Maybe it's not an important thing, maybe it's just a detail that not everyone would notice, but it's a correct edit, and you know. Then, let me confirm that those edits weren't done by me: I had never had any interest in such things, my edits were different and you know, don't lie please. Finally, stop repeating that thing about Salorno: it wasn't me who did it, and I didn't revert your edit because it was correct. Do you see? That's what means what I told you: not reverting every correct edit you do, just check your edits to see if they're wrong, such as your Bozen and Meran. Maybe the other IP's editing has been disruptive, at least in some occasions, but not mine: I'm firmly convinced that your Bolzano > Bozen and Merano > Meran changes are uncorrect. That's the consensus. The burden to prove "we" are wrong is yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.1.181 (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)

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.
 * Oh, since we're here: this morning I've thanked the admin who resolved the dispute in my favour, while Mai-Sachme, he who asked for a third opinion but after receiving he didn't agree with it, has kept trying angering me, over and over and over... You should consider this too, maybe you'll see his statement with different eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.53 (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you for involving other regular editors in this matter. As you'll probably have guessed, this dispute isn't really my thing; I'm still trying to catch up but doubt I'll have too much time to dedicate to it. While we always welcome unregistered users who create accounts, I note that this new account is of the type which could be blocked as a sockpuppet, or alternatively a meatpuppet, without any admin dissent in the slightest. The phrase springs to mind. This matter will probably be helped by a lack of new suspicious accounts. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All right, have a look at these 3 users' contrbutions: Special:Contributions/5.101.99.101 Special:Contributions/Bolgitalianissimano Special:Contributions/46.252.205.187. The last one was me, the first one was my friend. The one in the middle... Who do you think could be? Is it similar to the first or the last one? Are you still convinced I'm the one behind all 3 IPs? Perhaps you are, so I'm telling you the same thing I told to the other admin involved by Mai-Sachme: isn't it possible for you admins to check that I'm not Bolgitalianissimano? If there's a way, and I don't know if there is, please verify it, clean your doubts (or false certainties incited by rancorous users). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.53 (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for bothering you, I'm not that used to admin stuff. Where exactly should I request a block? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * Checkuser will not be needed here, nor would it be useful. All the IP users have shown themselves capable of editing from open proxies, and various ranges. More importantly, the WP:DUCK doctrine applies. That is to say, if you're going to repeatedly change spellings to national favourites, you'll get blocked anyway. At WP:SPI, when your edits are compared with or without checkuser (ping Mai-Sachme), you'd lose. At WP:ANI, you'd lose. At WP:ANEW, you'd lose. If I see much more, you'll lose. And amidst all of that, I might slap you with a topic ban. I hope therefore this account doesn't get used for the purpose it's been put to so far. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You forgot to mention WP:AGF. Watch my last edits, started before you wrote your comment, such as. 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)
 * Ask any admin, or any of the aforementioned noticeboards, I am currently full of good faith assumptions. I admire your change of editing focus. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:26, 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)
 * Don't expect tea and sympathy when editing in controversial and contested areas. What I'm trying to get across to you is that not everyone is as amiable as me. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed that German guy is not. Bolgitalianissimano (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to a research survey
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

Prison consultant
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)
 * Hello, yes thank you for your edits, which I admired nearly enough to revert to. My first impression of the article was not a good one. Copyvios, multiple accounts, organised COI, as well as the BLP stuff and obviously bad phrasing. If you wish to formulate an AfD I'd be happy to deliver it for you. However my opinion is that the topic would possibly be a notable one, and that it needs the major redesign to remove the biographical format. While BLP is normally a good argument, in this case its weight is diminished by the self-promotion sources. The self-promotion is also (or was) this article's problem. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll write up an AfD nomination tomorrow, then, and post it here for you to do the scut work. Thanks for your help, even (especially) if you don't necessarily agree. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 08:02, 3 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.


 * OK I will launch it tomorrow morning (UTC). -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Prison consultant -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail
210.195.80.199 (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your email. It's not really my place. But give me a troll to block.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm sorry for linking to the personal information on the user talk page. That was just bad judgement on my part. GABHello! 21:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for yesterday
T F { Contribs } 13:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)