User talk:Zzuuzz#Bidhan Singh vandalizer

Do you find {{noping|Bonkdonkdog}}'s response on their Talk page believable? And the username ... --Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:I've seen worse :) Global account is lurker-ish. Otherwise, no relevant information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::Can I block based on the username?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not seeing it. Bonk? Seems ambiguous to me at worst. If you're thihking "UK humorous slang", then I'm going to have to say that I wouldn't (oo-er). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, {{u|Zzuuzz}}. I'm writing to you as you are listed here, and you have been active today. I'm sorry to bother you with this, but please treat it as a heads-up for the present.

I have encountered difficulties with User:Czarking0 after this GA review was terminated at my request for reasons given [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicias/GA1&diff=prev&oldid=1278621846 here]. I decided not to renominate immediately as another good source book became available, and I'm reading that first to see what else I can add to the article. I would not have expected any further contact with Czarking0 under normal circumstances.

I have being doing some reviews myself to help the GA process and one of those, Talk:Heinz Vietze/GA1, was ongoing when the Nicias review was closed. I completed and posted my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heinz_Vietze/GA1&diff=prev&oldid=1278661379 initial report on Vietze] at 20:54 on 3 March, placing the review on hold. Only eight hours later, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heinz_Vietze/GA1&diff=next&oldid=1278661379 at 04:54 on 4 March], Czarking0 posted their views on the article. I do not object to anyone posting supplementary comments, but I did object to the tone used by Czarking0, especially interrogative demands like {{tq|Also, "to tell newly elected SED General Secretary Egon Krenz to resign" well did he?}} I decided to take action and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Czarking0&diff=prev&oldid=1278750551 wrote to Czarking0], pointing out that they should engage with the author and ask questions in a politely interested tone, not as an interrogation. As is their prerogative, Czarking0 deleted the post without response. The Vietze review is still on hold, btw.

I decided to pick up another GA review—Talk:Nannau Hall/GA1—but I was busy with other things for a few days before I could get around to doing it. I completed it last night and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nannau_Hall/GA1&diff=prev&oldid=1279319128 posted the report at 20:50]. I was happy with the article subject to confirmation of certain book sources, subsequently verified by the author. A mere 77 minutes after I posted my report, Czarking0 posted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nannau_Hall/GA1&diff=prev&oldid=1279329091 this].

I have tried to deal with their points as politely as I can, although few of their suggestions bore merit and needed any action. My perception is that Czarking0 is WP:FOLLOWING me, and could be trying to undermine me in the reviews I am doing. It would be stretching things to say I feel under threat or intimidated or whatever, but I certainly think Czarking0 is out of order in making such a hasty intervention at the Nannau review in the light of recent history.

I have read WP:FOLLOWING and WP:DWH to see what the site's recommendations are. I decided to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Czarking0&diff=prev&oldid=1279419258 write to Czarking0] first in an effort to discuss matters by asking them why they chose to intervene at both those reviews, and I am now waiting for their reply. While I could just sit and wait, I anticipate difficulties and I will not be surprised if the "following" continues, frankly. I therefore decided to contact an administrator, yourself as it turns out, on a heads-up basis.

Any advice you can give me would be much appreciated. I hope I'm handling things in the right way from a WP point of view. Do please point me in the right direction if I'm off the beaten track. I'll see how things go before contacting you again. Thank you for your time, though, and enjoy the rest of the weekend. Spartathenian (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, I'll take a look. I don't think we're at the red flag stage. I will advise that Wikipedia can often involve dealing with familiar faces, especially in niche areas such as GAR, and sometimes some robust scrutiny from people you've recently encountered. I also feel compelled to say this: We encourage people to be bold. Even if someone was a professional editor with impeccable credentials, they'd be ambitious expecting to conduct a perfect Wikipedia GAR solo within their first month. I'll also just mention, I mean you can approach pretty much any active admin including me, but the category where you found me is pretty hardcore (please examine the description at the top and its associated description page) - I think you'll be just fine going through normal talk processes and (if necessary) taking a look at dispute resolution. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, {{u|Zzuuzz}}, that's good advice. I certainly agree a lot can be achieved through discussion. Reviews are actually something I do professionally on an almost weekly basis, so I'm confident about handling them here, though I find I have to keep checking various aspects of the criteria. I think the big picture is beginning to take shape, though (he says hopefully!). Thanks again and all the best. Spartathenian (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|DotesConks}}'s edits are a bit much, even with the reference to their IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:Oh hell, I pinged by mistake.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hi @Bbb23, what about my edits are "a bit much"? I can improve on my editing if you would just tell me what I did wrong (in your opinion). Thanks! DotesConks (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Interesting. I see that you as an administrator yourself has reported me to another administrator because I proposed a merge change? To me this sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Except its trying to get me blocked for proposing a change. DotesConks (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I can't speak for Bbb23, and I appreciate you may have been trying something other than a merge, but I can make the adjacent general observation, without pointing to you specifically, that fiddling about with anything related to policy is never a good look for a new user. In fact I can't recall it ever having worked out well. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Zzuuzz I never changed anything with policy. Just proposed a merge. Also the general observations you have made sound like Wikipedia:But I'm an administrator! except for users with tens of thousands of edit counts that act as if they have some moral or high authority and deserve nothing but respect and their opinions are more readily accepted than a new user. This is not pointed towards any one person by the way. DotesConks (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::OK, but writing "Got auto confirmed access. Tagged this [policy]", and proposing (intentionally or not) to stuff what's in that article into [policy], would be some good examples of changing anything with policy. It's more explanation and advice, really, than opinion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Zzuuzz I don't think you understand so please let me clarify. I proposed a merge of the article CheckUser into the policy page WP:CheckUser and because I did not have autoconfirmed status, I was unable to put the template the policy page that would let people know that there was a discussion to merge the encyclopedic article into the policy one. Also he shouldn't have removed the template before the discussion was closed, but since consensus was already forming that it shouldn't be merged I am fine with it. DotesConks (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.

We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this [https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bwKum9LHQGL5bWS survey], which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/40213875]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:Sigh. I'm inclined to ignore such things at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! You recently blocked Special:Contributions/Speckmyth. I just found Special:Contributions/FreePublicAccount which shows the same behavior: added a new section "Free Account" to an article and posted the account's (alleged) password, apparently with the intent to "open up" this account for everyone. I guess this violates Wikipedia policy regarding account sharing. Please block. Thanks! Also see Special:Contributions/133.32.224.177 (blocked as block evasion by Speckmyth). — Chrisahn (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you might want to revoke talk page access here too, by the way. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:Never mind, done by the always alert Drmies. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::ty ty Drmies (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I indeffed {{noping|AnonymousScholar49}} when patrolling CSD and seeing that they tagged 20 (!!) articles as WP:A7, each as a "newcomer task: copyedit". This is an account that was created on March 14, 2025. They'd already gotten in trouble for other unconstructive edits. They responded to their warnings, but always defending the merits of their edits. This is not a new user; do you have enough to justify a check? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:I see where you're coming from, but don't have anything to add. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::Are you tracking my location? :p Thanks for looking into it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

They made eight edits to their userpage, each of which adds one character. Is this a sock/LTA or am I being paranoid? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:A pro would probably have made at least nine. I'm going to make a blind guess at the probability: somewhere around 20%, based on the username and edits on commons. Some normal people do make edits like that, even if it's a bit gamey. Paranoia would be to block them at this point. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Zzuuzz, I hope you are well. I wasn't sure if [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bergen_County_Academies&diff=prev&oldid=1283772532|this] needs a rev/del? Knitsey (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{tps}} done! EvergreenFir (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::Lovely, thank you @EvergreenFir. Knitsey (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ygm}}

Responded, hope that sorts that mix-up. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

When you CU-blocked this editor, were they using a VPN? Not that I think this is likely to be exculpatory in any case, but I'd like to know how many misapprehensions I'm going to have to drill through here. -- asilvering (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi asilvering. The answer, specifically related to that account, at the time, before about the second week of March, is a clear no. Since then, on and off. Their first comment after being blocked remains a mystery to me. Let me know if I can help with more info. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. And sheesh. My only guess is that the IP unblock they're talking about was an autoblock that wore off. Past that I think we have to put all weirdness down to "children do things for no discernable reason." -- asilvering (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I hope this finds you well. An editor has reverted my edits three times in 24 hours, while refusing to discuss. They merely show a difference of opinion in the edit summaries, without backing it up on the talk page. They accuse me of OR and tag the whole page as OR, although the single fact which they dispute is backed up by an authoritative newspaper, and they have removed the citation with no explanation. Advice, please? Thanks. Storye book (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Update: the editor has now made a comment on a talk page, but they just accuse me of not using credible sources, without backing up their opinion about credibility. 19th-century British newspapers were serious and disciplined works, and considered authoritative regarding factual articles (not like some of today's newspapers). Storye book (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

It's getting worse. They have now accused me of symptoms of insanity {"logorheic"), and are calling me a liar, on my talk page, and on the talk page of the article Charles Verity, and they are asking readers to look at my talk page to see lies and insanity. I cannot continue the conversation at that low level. I have now edited the article concerned to reflect exactly what the source says, so as to avoid further discussion, due to this bullying. Advice please? Storye book (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Some of that does indeed seem out of order and straying into personal attacks. At the very least not entirely civil. I'm afraid I don't have access to the references so can't really opine on the verifiability (I've got to admit I am a stickler for verifiability). I know that some places have a protectionist attitude to the term 'engineer', and sometimes a licence is required to be described as such. I don't think that applies so much in the UK as it does in some other places. It appears this user is not from the UK, which I think is probably relevant. Going forward I think you'll have to get other opinions, preferably from people familiar with the subject. It would be helpful to detail the sources saying he was more than a building contractor to civil engineers. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:: Thank you. Well, in 19th-century UK, there did not need to be university degrees, formal qualifications or institutions to prove engineership.The medieval stonemasons who designed and built our great cathedrals were engineers, but just did not use that word for it. I agree that this editor does not understand that context. Charles Verity was a stonemason from a tradition which inherited the skills of the medieval stonemasons. In the Charles Verity article, I was using the word, "engineer" in the old sense, and certainly not in any modern American formal sense. Now this editor is removing my corrections of my own typos. I have shaky hands and poor eyesight, and am constantly having to correct my own double full stops - and the editor has put my typos back! It gets worse and worse. And this altercation is making my hands shakier. Storye book (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::: I really don't know what to do here, sorry. The editor has twice accused me of insanity, and they are still tagging that Charles article as being dishonest. At the same time, they have changed the punctuation in the quotation, such that it no longer matches the source. Why? I have corrected the quotation, and have now photographed the sources for Charles Verity's son Charles Henry Verity, and linked those Commons photos in the citations. But I know that the editor will continue to tag the article unnecessarily, and make a nuisance of themselves. I am doing my best to satisfy any questions which may arise, but this behaviour is now hounding behaviour, which is harmful to a person like me who is obliged on constantly clean up the mess. Really sorry to bother you with this, you must be pretty bored with it by now. Sorry. Storye book (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::: I should add that in consequence of this, I have now tracked down a historian of Charles Verity, and have asked them to check sources to see if the word "engineer" is ever mentioned in respect Charles Verity or his son. Of course I could only use that material if the sources are authoritative and in the public domain. Meanwhile I have removed the word "engineer" for the sake of peace, but the hounding continues. Storye book (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Unfortunately I'm really busy elsewhere at the moment. I am certainly interested in the uncivil behaviour, and it's not a great look. But we can only eventually go on what the sources say, as I know you know. And I am also watching that with great interest. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::: Thank you. I am doing my best to keep the peace, Storye book (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for removing TPA there. Should have done it myself but got distracted with revision deletion. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:No problem, Wikinger by the way. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Ah, I did wonder. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)