User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 34/header
(new section)
Hi Zzuuzz, I'm writing you here because I've seen this is the main wiki where you edit and because here you're an abusefilter, checkuser and sysop. I think I've found a few proxies used recently by a single user who hides behind them to make similar unconstructive edits in different pages, and a few socks used to do the same kind of edits created recently. If I write here the suspicious proxies IP ranges, will you be able to block them (as they're forbidden on Wikipedia) and do the same with the socks created over such ranges (as they weren't created for reasons according to community standards)? Let me know, please, I'd like to be helpful to the project by reporting vandals in bad faith who use proxies and socks such as this one! Zeronetwone (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Lucarubis
I came across this: an IP (subsequently blocked) adding a sock tag to User talk:Lucarubis. That's a bit odd: the user was indeed CU blocked (by you: [1]), but the block log doesn't state whose sock they are, and the sockmaster claimed by the IP is a user who is not blocked. Have you got any idea what's going on here? – Uanfala (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well, that IP's talk page seems to have gone weird since I last looked at it. I can answer most of your question with this version. The unblocked account is not blocked merely because of a lack of need. The rest I don't know much about, but this vandal is what's being referenced. Maybe Binksternet or a stalker knows something. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Looks to me like the dog and rapper vandal only appeared on that IP for two days, starting with this change on June 24. Everything before that was someone with far better language skills. I don't have any idea about what's going on at the Lucarubis userpage. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you both. This is a real mess, isn't it? In the topic area of the languages, writing systems and esp. the anthems of former Soviet countries, there appear to be several apparently unrleated techincally, but editorially indistinguishable, sock rings. – Uanfala (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Looks to me like the dog and rapper vandal only appeared on that IP for two days, starting with this change on June 24. Everything before that was someone with far better language skills. I don't have any idea about what's going on at the Lucarubis userpage. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Requested edit summary hiding
I'm not sure if I should report this here, but do you think you could remove the edit summaries for some of the edits by Special:Contributions/The Chawners? I would appreciate it if you did since the summaries are diruptive. SemiHypercube (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
More cell phone spam
Howdy - pursuant to that guy who is spamming cell phone numbers into university articles: a new number that has popped up a couple of times now is 9650828969 [2][3]. Do you think you could add it to the abuse filter? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Requesting a CU
Hello there, if you have time, could you run a CheckUser on SPI/NadirAli? It has been lying dormant for weeks and the supposed master is taking advantage of that by engaging in disruption. --RaviC (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- It looks complicated, and there's not a great deal for a CU to go on in relation to Boxman88. Fill in some gaps for me while I read up, if you wouldn't mind ... what restrictions are currently in place for this user? and what recent arbitration/admin activity has taken place in relation to this user? -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is enough behavioral evidence for a CU; in fact, I myself noted some similarities after the SPI was filed and those similarities are not mentioned there. The account (Boxman88) edited on the 29th June,[4] repeating the same POV as NadirAli[5] on an article that can be considered to border on the India-Pakistan conflict from where he is topic banned.[6] After the filing of this SPI, he stopped editing for a couple of days and then returned to engage in more disruption as generally observed in accounts that are on the verge of getting blocked. --RaviC (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't miss the similarities. Let me be explicit after my initial review: the CU result between the two accounts is somewhere between possible and inconclusive, but there is almost certainly logged-out editing (which I can't disclose in detail) and a match to at least one other account (which I might not disclose). -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is enough behavioral evidence for a CU; in fact, I myself noted some similarities after the SPI was filed and those similarities are not mentioned there. The account (Boxman88) edited on the 29th June,[4] repeating the same POV as NadirAli[5] on an article that can be considered to border on the India-Pakistan conflict from where he is topic banned.[6] After the filing of this SPI, he stopped editing for a couple of days and then returned to engage in more disruption as generally observed in accounts that are on the verge of getting blocked. --RaviC (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yep, because that account is his. Obviously, he has carried out mass logged out editing to evade his siteban and topic ban throughout the years since 2007. Please take a look the previous SPI [7] which was closed without a policy based factor. I've looked deeper into these articles and could find more than dozens of IPs that have been abused by NadirAli (In addition to editing while logged out, NadirAli is explicitly banned from using any other identity including IP addresses per Arbcom restrictions placed on him.[8]). Let me know what's next. Thank you. --RaviC (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)