User talk:zzuuzz

Change of email address: As of 22 July 2018 I have changed email address (verify). You may continue to email me through Special:EmailUser if necessary, but please do not use the old address if you have it. If you do email me through Special:EmailUser, there is no need to leave a notification message.

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Would you glance over the collection of socks for Shiptiss? I've just blocked (confirmed to each other, behaviorially to Shiptiss) DavaODrecca and Lyzrd. When searching through logs to check notes on past socks, several of which I blocked on behavior/NOTHERE alone without CU in the past, I kept seeing A134's name pop up. Just like a more familiar eye to take a look. -- ferret (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ferret. With a brief glance, yes that's definitely A134, employing both current and traditional MOs, on familiar ranges. Obviously Shiptiss appears a bit stale, but given their username and third and last edits, that also seems pretty certain. I'll have a proper rummage a bit later, unless you've got there first, as there's usually more. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A134 is more of a "I know of them" than a "I'm knowledgeable about them" for me so I will defer to you :) -- ferret (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Lamasmusht

With one edit, most CUs probably won't be able to identify this user, but you aren't like most CUs. The pressure is on... --Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't know about that. If I told you it's the same as Judahtartu, and all that ilk, I bet you wouldn't be surprised. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'd lose that bet. How am I supposed to connect that one edit behaviorally to that mess? I assure you I'm not that good.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could have just blocked per

WP:NOTHERE, who goes to oppose an RfA on their first edit and refer to a discussion a year earlier? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Seasonal greetings!!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Zzuuzz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I always give the weird ones to you. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Winged Blades of Godric and the filer Timovinga. Account created two days ago. First edit to create a userpage. Several consecutive edits to one article. And then an SPI with elaborate, detailed, well-presented evidence, using diffs AND special sub-tools of EIA that I haven't seen before.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed that's unusual behaviour for a new user. Nothing really jumps out from either my memory or the technicals at this time. The combination of proficiency and location is a standout combination, but it may mean more to another checkuser than to me. If I had just a bit more to go on I might be able to start guessing connections. I did come across this SPI while looking into things. It kinda looks similar in places. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does, but if there's no technical connection... --Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind revoking TPA on this user? Joyous! Noise! 12:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I noticed you hadn't edited for a bit, so I took care of it. Joyous! Noise! 12:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it looks like you and Widr might have had an edit conflict on this revert: [[1]]? Ayenaee (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. The troll who has been editing that page uses multiple identities and relies on people not fully checking the page history when reverting. These are not legitimate edits, so I was just cleaning up some overlooked trolling. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Learn something new about vandalism every day. Fooled me. Thanks. Ayenaee (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I'm not quite sure what needs to be repaired in the ANI history right now... Drmies (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been fixed by some mysterious anon. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

God, it's all so pathetic. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I had that contributions page open to see what edits would come out, and I see you must have been doing something similar. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I see what you're doing: thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's a dirty job... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting the R262 page from IP socks. Didn't even realize crazy stuff was happening because I fell asleep.

Just curious, I know this probably constitutes "WP:PREEMPTIVE," but would it be possible to protect this page too in advance? The sockmaster seems to actively watch this page and fight over a picture the moment it is unprotected. ie - The page had been protected for over a year until a few days ago, when the sockmaster moved fast right after the protection was lifted lol. Mtattrain (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you block John Long McDong & co. - see Dinglequeeef for identical user page. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, same LTA, the account is now glocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ICYMI, there's also User:Airplane from Choopies Deepfake and User:The Alan Shearer Centre. Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure if you have pings enabled or not, so I'm just re-asking here:
At EFFPR (link in the title), there is a false positive report about a filter that you were the last to edit, it's been sitting there for a handful of days - can you check it out?
I think by now the IP has added most of the categories they said they wanted, but someone who knows what it's for still needs to check it out. – 2804:F1...0E:888D (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have pings enabled, but that didn't ping. I can tell you now that the filter hit is related to German inventions, which is a User:Europefan LTA issue. I would need to do some research to say any more, but there's your quick answer. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(my IP randomly turned into an IPv4)

I didn't think about it, but it was probably the shortening I did of my signature, that broke the ping. The timestamp was ~~~~~, but the IP part was manual. Oops.

Thanks for checking it out. – 143.208.238.117 (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Sanie Yahya, a representative of Open Foundation West Africa. I was recommended by Graham to help me request Ip Block address for our community members. Open Foundation West Africa hosts quarterly training sessions for newbies across the regions in Ghana , introducing them to Wikipedia. After every training season, we've interested newbies who are eager to create Wikipedia accounts, unfortunately 90% of the time they experience IP Block address.

I will be super glad if you can assist us by helping us unblock these new accounts from the IP address anytime the issue arises. Pirate 064 (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

WP:ACC v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 18:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

True, but I think that slightly underestimates the problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

conflict of interest, or people who want to create articles about entrepreneurs, media personalities, or people in the music industry. All that said, yes tell me who needs block exemption.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Zzuuzz, thank you so much for your quick response. I have taken well notice of these guidelines and I am glad you raised these concerns. Our next Wikipedia training session is on the 16th March, 2024. It is highly likely that the new members will experience IP Block. I will do well to tick all the boxes you mentioned before submitting any of the names to you.

Thank you once again. Pirate 064 (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is it possible you share your email address with me? Pirate 064 (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer anything that can be done on the wiki to be done on the wiki. Contrary to many people, email is not a more direct communication route for me. That said, if there's some pressing privacy concerns I can be reached through Special:EmailUser/Zzuuzz. Other emails sent direct to my email address don't cause any notification for me, and there's no guarantee they'll be noticed. For that reason I don't usually give out my email address or send many replies which might contain it. In short, inboxes and email discussions are not my thing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well noted. I will keep you updated... Thank you Pirate 064 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zzuuzz, I just wanna to say, I’m sorry for vandalism the hoowinked 1 & 2 page, is because I was going to do inspect the edit because my brain told me so, but it ended up not working ( like just imagine if it would be a hacker ) but I decide to do editing, while it may be funny, but your could get block or even worse banned for this forever, and I’m sorry for that and I promise I will never ever ever ever ever do that ever ever again 2600:1700:6940:C370:794D:51C7:7FCC:6612 (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, and I look forward to you becoming a constructive contributor. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for blocking Special:Contributions/147.235.192.16 that was vandalising Jonathan Glazer. The issue unfortunately continues such as this serious BLP violation [2]. Due to the Oskars controversy, the page would benefit from protection under Israel-Palestine. (I've submitted a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Jonathan_Glazer, but there appears to be a backlog.) -- K.e.coffman (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've put down a few days of standard semi, not sayin' there might not be other forthcoming issues which might warrant an elevation... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Could you revision delete starting with this [3]? There's no need for this to be in the history. --K.e.coffman (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that's sorted. That remaining text could use some source-adherence work btw. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! I revised the newly added passage just to include the quote; this should work for now. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to check something with you as you're an an admin who happened to have recently posted to this talk page. Does this need any action? (redacting etc). Disclosure worried me slightly but I may be overreacting so not sure. DeCausa (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think that's OK. The user seems transparent about being at school, as are many many others. It might be a different story if they'd said much more. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference in these edits that got reverted at Battle of the Granicus? I know I'm missing something but have no idea *what*... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edits wrote BattIe, AIexander, and MiIetus, using a capital I. Also lssus with a lowercase L. If you look at the page source for that revision you'll probably spot it. Me, I could see it in the diff. It's fairly obscure. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my word thank you for responding...I would have never spotted that. Heh maybe someone around here could write a gotcha program to catch that odd/weird/how-do-these-folks-even-THINK-of-this type of vandalism?!? Shearonink (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the block be changed to a CU block? Doug Weller talk 09:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug. Well that's an interesting question so I'll disproportionately opine a little. I don't think it's necessary. Checkuser blocks are superblocks with all sorts of uses, but in my opinion are mainly intended for occasions where the checkuser knows something that non-checkusers don't. That's not the case here. It's a confirmed sock, the master (as far as I know it) is identified, there's no relevant IP business, geolocations, checkuser stuff, or other private business that adds anything to the block. If an admin wants to review the block, there is checkuser confirmation of what's going on, but they have all the facts to hand and can review it for what it is. Admins have a nice big sock tag on the userpage to discover, the blocking admin will be consulted by any competent admin, and no doubt many talk page watchers will know about it if anyone actually tries to review it. Now, there is a checkuser block on the master's account. This may be an interesting thing to follow up, and will certainly be relevant to any review of that account, but I don't think it's necessary to rely on it with this block given what I've just said. I take the opinion (at least with what I've seen) that the reference to the master is enough here. Having said all that, if someone wants to change the block reason to 'abusing multiple accounts', 'sock of Izmir18', or anything else, they're welcome to do that (another advantage of a non-cu block). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand your reasoning. I'm guilty at the minute of not filing two SPI reports I did recently! Doug Weller talk 11:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden facts have changed a little, so it's now a checkuser block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evening, I've blocked them both as their both as bad as each other, the ip's gone and hopped to a new one so I've ECP'd the page so neither of them can edit it when the block expires. Cheers for trying to use the carrot but unfortunately stick had to be applied. Amortias (T)(C) 22:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My conclusions precisely. At least we're (a bit) clearer about what's going on. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amortias I told you that they will continue the edit war because if someone gets away with 30 reverts in a few hours (probably a record for someone to get away with that many in such a short period of time), they will think they are on the right track and they will learn nothing and they will feel like they have won a war. I know I deserve all the blocks too, but I had to show you what I've already told you, and now I'm telling you, if you protect the article, you should revert it back to the stable version, not the version he last edited and wanted to keep and battled like crazy for. That's a carrot for him as well and that will also make him think he's on the right track, he at least won some part of his war again and not learn anything, and continue to fail to get the point. 217.29.217.47 (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your block extends to you as a person not the IP. if you continue to edit under other ip's they'll just be blocked as well. Go away and come back in 36 hours (or more) and reconsider how to approach this. Amortias (T)(C) 22:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hope you are doing well. This IP, who you blocked twice months ago and who was part of several blocks on multiple articles, has come back to make the same edits. They may continue their actions, so maybe another block is necessary? Have a nice day. ภץאคгöร 00:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but another IP from the same location as the blocked IPs in this discussion has returned and made similar edits, making things up and removing sourced information for no valid reason. ภץאคгöร 20:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not palming this off, but I wonder if NinjaRobotPirate wants to look at that /40's block log before I delve further. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like I was pretty convinced in the past that this was a sock, and it still looks like the same sock now. I blocked a narrower range, though. I think it's a /48, not a /40. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow this specific Colorado sock pops up months later, and now they're trying to communicate with me normally after their attempt to report me for a block failed again. Another case of trying to make themselves look clean. Can something be done about this one? Sorry, had to write about it. ภץאคгöร 00:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why did you removed the jimbo gif? W!kipedista (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello W!kipedista. I feel that Jimbo likes a certain style of user page and that this style of flashing image isn't really Jimbo's style. Besides, I had the page open too long and it nearly gave me epilepsy. Why don't you ask Jimbo if he'd like it on his user page? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi zzuuzz. Could you please check WorkhouseNYC to see if it's related to Doniagohole? They're both entirely focused on Matthew Modine which has been disrupted since March 22. As specific evidence, this edit by the first account was followed by this edit from the latter account. Finally, the first account claims to be an official representative for the actor so there may be more activity than just these two accounts. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel Quinlan. Yes it's the same user. I thought an autoblock might kick them up the proverbial, as sometimes happens, but alas. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming. I'll proceed with a block unless you advise otherwise. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you know which LTA We hate police is?--Bbb23 (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Not one of my regulars, to date, but something tells me this is very probably Raxythecat. Candied Taters and The Trash Compactor are probably related. At least the behaviour of the first one, turning up in this check, is not going to be a coincidence. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I want to know who are your "regulars". Do they get a discount for repeat business?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they get faster service 😅. – 2804:F14:8093:5F01:DC82:20AD:F354:171E (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm not sure if you're the right person to ask about this but I may as well try.

Yesterday, you blocked an IP range that was being used for vandalism. I noticed that the IP that was associated with a device I use was caught up in it. This wouldn't normally bother me, because 1 it happened before, and 2 I don't edit wikipedia from that particular device anyway.

The problem is, that the specific IP that the offending edits were made from was the one linked to my device. I initially thought my IP changed recently and I was unlucky enough to get one that was recently used for vandalism, however, that wasn't the case. My IP was unchanged for months until I forced it to reset this morning. This means that somebody else was making edits from the same IP that I use, while I was using it which, I was told, should not be possible.

I don't seem to have any malware, and didn't install any suspicious apps, or click any links that could lead to someone rerouting their connection through my tablet. There is no other suspicious behavior, neither on my device, nor any of the accounts I'm logged into. Proxy scans claim that the IP is not used as an open proxy. My browser history also shows no evidence of somebody else using my tablet.

The only thing I'm interested in is some advice. It this a common occurrence, that vandals just use whatever IP address they want, or is there something going on on my end that I should be worried about? I would appreciate a bit of input, and sorry for bothering you. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could check if you're running any P2P software, but I don't think that's a very likely scenario. Unfortunately I don't know enough about this vandal to say where they're from or what networks they normally use. Otherwise, what I would say is that it is not uncommon to share addresses with others. On a network like yours I'd expect IPs to rotate more often than several months. For some additional context, compare your current IP with Special:Contributions/46.97.170.120 - there's obviously some switching going on there, and you might want to put yourself in the shoes of that user. Then Special:Contributions/46.97.171.86 and Special:Contributions/46.97.171.203 didn't stay the same for a month. That kind of rotation and switching is normal, and I would normally suspect that it's happened to you. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is obviously me from this computer. That switch occurred during a recent power outage. The situation with Special:Contributions/46.97.168.151 is completely different. The first three edits were always there whenever I would check my contribution history (force of habit). I checked a few hours before the disruptive edits were made and I saw those three edits there. This morning I checked back again, and the disruptive edits were there. Is it possible for an IP to change, then then shortly afterwards switch back to the exact same one from 24 hours earlier? I find it highly unlikely. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This specific situation isn't one I've seen before. I really can't say what your ISP is doing, but my other best guess (assuming it isn't a P2P proxy or someone in your household) could only be that they're using NAT (see

tracert. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

As I said, that IP was used by a tablet, with a 4g connection. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, then my best guess is that your ISP is using CGNAT to share addresses. A search on the Internet seems to confirm this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zzuuzz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC). 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 {{

ygm

}} template.

LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that on March 11, 2024, you indeffed Mrs. Janice Jones as an LTA. I just blocked a new user, Diskyboy at

Hi Bbb23. Mrs. Janice Jones was blocked as a sock of Hamish Ross (talk · contribs · block log), which may or may not blast you from the past. They were running a revert-everything script, at least proximally, as they sometimes do. I would say this one (and probably everyone else in those article histories) appears generally unrelated on those grounds. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The username is familiar, but beyond that... Thanks for explaining.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. At the talk page of a user you blocked a short while ago, there was a message left in morse code. It translates thusly: "GOOD JOB, CHAMP! YOU WON MY LITTLE CHASE GAME. HOWEVER, THAT WAS LEVEL ONE. IF YOU WANT LEVEL TWO, I"LL GIVE IT TO YOU SOON. IN THE MEANTIME, RELAX AND ADORE YOUR STUBBORN LITTLE PERSONALITY." There was a warning from the now blocked user they had intended to turn things into a "game" (see edit summary here [4] and vandalism here [5]). There's a definite creepy factor to the message above, but maybe I'm reacting the way they hoped, which could be the extent and purpose of their "game". I'm completely new at encountering someone like this in Wikipedia and I have no idea what administrators are able to do to actually track users. If there's something that can be done to find this person as they create another account (whether they do it today or wait a spell to lessen the possibility of detection), I think it might be a good idea to employ whatever preventative measures you or others have at your disposal. Thank you for your time. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the deciphering and notification. Morse, have I fallen into the 19th century? If they turn up again they'll just get blocked without any ceremony. Simple as. There's no game, just an endless wall of admins. Thanks again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zzuuzz, I've never seen a SpaceX/Starlink range before but I came across 2a0d:3344:166d:9e10:3c55:ff26:20d8:8406/38 while investigating some spam. What would you do with it? I don't think there's a pressing need to block that range in particular but I'm wondering how legit traffic from that ISP is/how sceptical I should be of edits from it in future. Should I treat like a residential ISP or more like a proxy/VPN? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I've come across a few satellite ranges before. 67.142.0.0/16 (Hughes Network Systems) is one of them I believe. I think you'd treat it like any other ISP, though this one probably has global scope. I can't image any commercial (or free) VPN service making any money using Starlink, so it's probably going to get used by Elon-paying customers, a good proportion of whom will probably have no other current option. Should you be sceptical? I'd lean towards a positive response, but I don't think it's inherently a problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seems an expensive way to spam Wikipedia but each to their own! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell, @Zzuuzz, If this help, I am a former Starlink customer (I have fiber now!). In regards to whether this IPv6 might have collateral beyond a single customer, while I was a customer everything was CG-NAT for IPv4 so shared use, and IPv6 had not been turned on yet. I'm not sure when IPv6 turned up, but from what I quickly found, Starlink is assigning /56 ranges to individual customers. -- ferret (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]